[Talk-GB] MapThePaths downtime

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello everyone,

I have updated mapthepaths.org.uk's DNS record to point to a different server. 
When this is done I will need to obtain a new HTTPS certificate. It's possible 
that interruptions may occur over the next 24 hours or so but once updated it 
will be up without further interuption.

Thanks,
Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

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 which I am prepared to meet in the short term, I will 
also give accounts to trusted members of the community on request to work on 
the project should they wish.

Nick





From: OSMUK 
Sent: 13 December 2020 18:36
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Cc: Nick Whitelegg 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

Hey Nick,

This sounds like a great project and so I’m sure OSMUK can help with server 
space. We have just migrated hosting to AWS due to our previous host shutting 
down, so one option is to provide some space on there.

Best,

Adam

--
Adam Hoyle
[m] 07973 428 333
On 11 Dec 2020, 15:02 +0000, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB , wrote:

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend 
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Euro

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Martin/Nick,

Perhaps the combination of highway, surface and designation will cover many of 
these use-cases?

e.g. a service road that looks like a track but is a service road, and has 
bridleway rights, could be tagged as:

highway=service; surface=unpaved; designation=public_bridleway

For rendering, if one rendered tracks or unpaved service roads as dashed black 
lines, and designations as coloured lines, you could render the designation 
layer as a coloured transparent line above the track/service road layer. This 
is what I do in my own projects.

Nick



From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 13 December 2020 14:01
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 13/12/2020 13:45, Nick wrote:

> what do people think of Overlapping ways i.e. one is a road and
> a duplicate is a bridleway? Not elegant and something I would not
> normally suggest but...

Hi Nick,

When I've tried that in the past I've been jumped on for breaking a
fundamental rule of OSM that one feature should have only one entry in
the database.

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] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hi everyone,

I notice I'm being CCed in quite a bit here.

Just to make it clear, there are at least two "Nick"s on the thread. I just 
made the comment about Noverton Farm - it's another Nick who has made most of 
the contributions.

It's an interesting thread but just want to make sure that I am not being 
attributed to posts I didn't make.

Thanks,
Nick



From: Peter Neale 
Sent: 13 December 2020 10:44
To: Nick Whitelegg ; Edward Bainton 

Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.

The Wiki says that a driveway is (with my bold for emphasis),

" ... a minor service road leading to a residential or business property. It 
typically branches from a bigger road and leads toward an entrance to a 
specific destination (building, etc.). It may end at or pass the entrance, but 
either way, it gets close to its destination. It is rare for a driveway to be 
the way to access another roadway (but see Pipestems below)."

(pipestems allow a driveway to be shared between several properties)

So if, in this case, it leads on to another way (e.g. a bridleway, or a track), 
it is not a driveway.  Does this solve the problem?

Regards,
Peter

Peter Neale
t: 01908 309666
m: 07968 341930
skype: nealepb


On Sunday, 13 December 2020, 10:25:46 GMT, Edward Bainton 
 wrote:


Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to ensure 
tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track doesn't solve 
the problem.

That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The different 
surfaces can be caught in the attributes.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton 
mailto:bainton@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>
> It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
> I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
> the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
> means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights, I'd 
probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes the farm 
buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to a building).

Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?

I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is what 
we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for the 
renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say track is 
a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by "driveway" we infer 
something, short, tidy, and suburban.

But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await 
correction by my olders.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
familiar.

A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long distance 
walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned 
using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice 
but​ the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on 
several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and 
attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.

As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, which 
is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I still haven't 
illustrated this walk incidentally, but...

Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..

Nick



From: Martin Wynne mailto:mar...@templot.com>>
Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:

>
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths downtime next weekend Dec 19/20

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello everyone,

A warning that the MapThePaths site (www.mapthepaths.org.uk) and also perhaps 
Freemap will be unavailable next weekend, Dec 19/20, and possibly into the 
early part of next week.

The reason is that I am updating the OSM data on the server next weekend.

I have decided to create a smaller Hetzner server for my UK-specific OSM 
projects, notably MapThePaths, and leave the current server to focus on the 
Europe-wide (and potentially worldwide, but my funds don't stretch to this) 
Hikar and OpenTrailView projects.

This new server may, dependent on time and interest, also be used for 
experimenting with creating an OSM UK walkers' map. I will be willing to give 
shell accounts to trusted members of the OSM UK community (people I know 
personally or mailing list regulars). More on that later.

Nick



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
familiar.

A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long distance 
walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned 
using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice 
but​ the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on 
several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and 
attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.

As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, which 
is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I still haven't 
illustrated this walk incidentally, but...

Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..

Nick



From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:

>
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space
and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly
by hosting something from OSM.


 >  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
 > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
 > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
 > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
 >
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475



Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but
I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for
the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only
for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now.

I will have another look and see where I might start. The idea of
creating my own map does appeal to me.

Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg

It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

This is where the farm drive leaves the road - this is definitely more
than a "track" - note the double gates:

  https://goo.gl/maps/XEs4XKs5UUHNBt8E8

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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Seán,

Thanks for that, sounds a great idea! Would be a great addition to any UK 
countryside map once you have opened your API.

Nick


From: Seán Lynch 
Sent: 11 December 2020 21:03
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Cc: Andy Townsend ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 

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

Hi all,

As people enjoy their walk, we would love if you could consider uploading any 
plastic / litter data into OpenLitterMap<http://openlittermap.com>

Right now the only way to add data is using our platform, but we will open our 
API hopefully next year and allow uploads from other developers.


github.com/openlittermap<http://github.com/openlittermap>

TeamLitterUK is currently in 1st place globally for uploading the most data

Litter mapping has a remarkably low barrier to entry, allowing for potentially 
many more people to get involved with data collection and mapping

Cheers,

Seán

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 15:05, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to 

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

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend 
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Europe rather than just the 
UK.

 https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb

The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 40GB disc 
space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long term, but I 
suspect that would get us going in the early stages.


That'll depending on what you want the server to do, I think.  For an OSM Carto 
Map style with automatic updates and reasonable performance you'll probably 
need > 6Gb memory for the whole of the UK these days.  Maybe a CX31 at €11 per 
month (i.e. about the price of a couple of pints and a "substantial" pork pie 
for those in tier 2)?  https://map.atownsend.org.uk is a CX41 I believe, and 
renders Mapnik / Carto CSS map tiles that cover UK and Ireland.  It could 
probably include another "medium sized OSM country" in the same map style as 
well without too many problems.


On the question of "could we show feature X" (e.g. "cycleways with foot=yes" 
different to "cycl

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

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Hi


Hello Tony,


>I like the idea.

>Can it be extended to be a UK based map which is has greater prominence to 
>aspects such as the >recent discussion about cyclists and paths?


Potentially, yes - I don't see why not.

I have to admit I personally haven't had much experience in recent years with 
creating mapnik stylesheets (I've been working with client-side renderers such 
as Kothic and have played with Tangram), hence my suggestion earlier of 
starting with Andy Townsend's style.


>Does anyone have an idea of how it could be made to happen - could we (OSM UK) 
>fund and >maintain it with commitment for say 2 years? Using volunteers or 
>donated equipment or personal >funding commitments? Do we know the size of 
>server required to support a given load? Can we >manage the required 
>operations and security?

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Europe rather than just the 
UK.

 https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb

The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 40GB disc 
space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long term, but I 
suspect that would get us going in the early stages.

I'm quite happy to create the server and pay the initial costs, but it would be 
good if funds could be found from OSMUK longer term if possible.

I'm also happy to do some dev work (client and server side). I can tweak the 
cartography and add contours (I have experience doing this) but I'll leave it 
up to others to do serious cartography work, and of course web design.

Or, we could even use client-side rendering, Tangram is pretty powerful, have 
had a play with it.

Would be a great project for the community to work on.

Nick



From: Tony Shield 
Sent: 10 December 2020 17:36
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server


Hi

I like the idea.

Can it be extended to be a UK based map which is has greater prominence to 
aspects such as the recent discussion about cyclists and paths?


Does anyone have an idea of how it could be made to happen - could we (OSM UK) 
fund and maintain it with commitment for say 2 years? Using volunteers or 
donated equipment or personal funding commitments? Do we know the size of 
server required to support a given load? Can we manage the required operations 
and security?


Tony Shield - TonyS999




On 04/12/2020 15:40, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Bridleway across field

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

This reminds me a bit of this location, also in Wiltshire:

https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=51.06209564615185=-2.0421791551466137=3=0

Note the orange diagonal line. That is the line of a bridleway according to the 
Wiltshire ROW data as sourced on rowmaps.com (so not necessarily the definitive 
map). Contrast that to the brown line a bit to its north and west which is the 
bridleway as mapped on OSM, using bridleway signs apparent on the ground plus a 
bit of assumption. The brown line is a well-defined and easily-navigable (on 
horse and bike as well as foot) track, but there are no actual bridleway signs 
on the bit which diverges from the orange  line so it 'may not' be an actual 
bridleway - even though ground evidence suggests it 'probably' is. I first 
mapped this in 2010 from a ground survey,, but lacking any legal source for it 
not being a bridleway, it's remained an OSM bridleway ever since even though 
part of it technically isn't.

The orange line is a random line across a field with no evidence on the ground 
whatsoever. No signs, no gates, no stiles, no nothing - and therefore not 
mappable.

Wiltshire seems to be like this quite often, incidentally: its signposting can 
be a bit inconsistent and I've noticed quite a few divergences between 
web-based council data and ground evidence. We need the definitive data to be 
legally used in OSM in these cases; though maybe the council should really be 
trying to actually divert the path to the on-the-ground route that people 
actually use!

Nick



From: nathan case 
Sent: 08 December 2020 15:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method.

But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a 
building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what 
your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can 
pass through walls...  At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even 
re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:
> but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the 
> PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new 
> buildings, or rivers).

IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken 
thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.

Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.

Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
mean it's been declared disused.

DaveF

___
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

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

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

... Just to follow up on this - if it helps explain what I thought would be 
nice for OSMUK to have - something like https://freemap.sk/, which I was 
introduced to by one of the lead developers several years ago at State of the 
Map Europe in Vienna.

This is an OSM-based map site specific for Slovakia, which comes with many 
features such as information about POIs, route-finding, elevation profiles, and 
so on. I've always thought that of all the local OSM sites, this one is 
particularly nice.

It could eventually use our own rendering but for now could use something like 
Andy Townsend's style combined with contours and hillshading.

On another matter, what's the status of whether OSMUK has its own server? (I've 
lost track of this, I have to admit). Do we have a development server where we 
could begin developing something like this, initially on a small scale (e.g. 
one county)?

Thanks,
Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
Sent: 04 December 2020 15:40
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Some councils insist that problem reports only come through their own
>web sites, or reluctantly, by phone, and will ignore emails (which is
>the default presentation for FixMyStreet).

>The web sites generally provide structured input, whereas FixMyStreet is
>generally free text, and also, the web site sometimes bypasses the
>council contact centre, and goes direct to the out sourced contractor.

A while back I did build an app to send problem reports to Hampshire county 
council specifically, as Hampshire had a very keen and enthusiastic staff 
member. However I contacted other local councils asking for details on whether 
they had any APIs to send the data to, but either heard nothing or a response 
(as you said) that they were not so keen on input from other sources.

A shame really, an open, standard API - and accompanying open source clients to 
the API - adopted by all councils for problem reporting would be a great thing 
to have.

Nick



From: David Woolley 
Sent: 04 December 2020 16:49
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

On 04/12/2020 16:38, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
> However as you say council take up could be problematic. Maybe we could
> provide a link to FixMyStreet?

Some councils insist that problem reports only come through their own
web sites, or reluctantly, by phone, and will ignore emails (which is
the default presentation for FixMyStreet).

The web sites generally provide structured input, whereas FixMyStreet is
generally free text, and also, the web site sometimes bypasses the
council contact centre, and goes direct to the out sourced contractor.

___
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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

I was just thinking it might be a nice idea to have a completely open path 
problems API that could be used not only for councils but also third party 
applications.

However as you say council take up could be problematic. Maybe we could provide 
a link to FixMyStreet?

Nick



From: Jon Pennycook 
Sent: 04 December 2020 15:51
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

For reporting problems, maybe FixMyStreet might be interested - see 
https://osm.fixmystreet.com/
They have sold a product to some councils to allow integration between the 
website and the council's (and their contractor's) back end systems.

I think that trying to encourage councils to use another API might be a 
challenge unless you offer them money.


On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, 15:43 Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB, 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com<http://rowmaps.com>  - the right of way reference could be sourced 
from this if it's not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk<http://free-map.org.uk>) once had the facility to add path 
problems, but now we have the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a 
semi-official OSMUK walkers' map with added functionality would have greater 
traction and it's something that could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] New Forest Panorama Mapping Party - September 13th 11.00

[Nick Whitelegg]

Sorry, got Dave's email wrong - damn typo!

dgreenw...@trekview.org

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 23 August 2020 13:43
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: New Forest Panorama Mapping Party - September 13th 11.00


Hello everyone,

Some of you are aware of this, but we (David Greenwood of TrekView and myself) 
are organising a Panorama Mapping Party on September 13th (Sunday) 11.00 
meeting at Ashurst New Forest station (hourly trains from Waterloo assuming no 
engineering work or other disruption).

This is a postponed event originally due to take place in May. The idea is to 
capture 360 panoramic imagery of all (or as many as possible in the time-frame) 
the footpaths in the Ashurst area, of which there are many. If you have your 
own 360 camera or phone capable of taking 360 photos (e.g. Photo Spheres with 
the Google Camera installed) then bring it along, otherwise there will be a 
limited number of 360 camera packs available to borrow for the event.

This imagery will be used in the Trek View project (trekview.org) and will also 
be uploaded to OpenTrailView, my own 100% open-source project to capture 360 
panoramas of walking trails (see e.g. https://www.opentrailview.org/?id=9900); 
source code https://gitlab.com/nickw1/opentrailview.

In order to allow social distancing, we're looking at a max of 10-12 at the 
event and to split up into groups of between 1 and 3.

I myself hope to be there, but may need to travel abroad in September, but if 
not, Dave will be on hand to help!

You need to book a place; see
https://campfire.trekview.org/t/new-forest-pano-party-rescheduled-sunday-13th-september/325
for more details, or email myself or David at dgreemw...@trekview.org for more 
details.

Thanks,
Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] New Forest Panorama Mapping Party - September 13th 11.00

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

Some of you are aware of this, but we (David Greenwood of TrekView and myself) 
are organising a Panorama Mapping Party on September 13th (Sunday) 11.00 
meeting at Ashurst New Forest station (hourly trains from Waterloo assuming no 
engineering work or other disruption).

This is a postponed event originally due to take place in May. The idea is to 
capture 360 panoramic imagery of all (or as many as possible in the time-frame) 
the footpaths in the Ashurst area, of which there are many. If you have your 
own 360 camera or phone capable of taking 360 photos (e.g. Photo Spheres with 
the Google Camera installed) then bring it along, otherwise there will be a 
limited number of 360 camera packs available to borrow for the event.

This imagery will be used in the Trek View project (trekview.org) and will also 
be uploaded to OpenTrailView, my own 100% open-source project to capture 360 
panoramas of walking trails (see e.g. https://www.opentrailview.org/?id=9900); 
source code https://gitlab.com/nickw1/opentrailview.

In order to allow social distancing, we're looking at a max of 10-12 at the 
event and to split up into groups of between 1 and 3.

I myself hope to be there, but may need to travel abroad in September, but if 
not, Dave will be on hand to help!

You need to book a place; see
https://campfire.trekview.org/t/new-forest-pano-party-rescheduled-sunday-13th-september/325
for more details, or email myself or David at dgreemw...@trekview.org for more 
details.

Thanks,
Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Nick Whitelegg]

Re a "UK walking style" there is Freemap, my own (long-standing) project, which 
has gone through a number of ups and downs (mostly due to hosting difficulties 
and lack of time to work on it) but has had a number of style improvements this 
year due to having more time than expected to work on it. It's at 
https://www.free-map.org.uk.

It aims to distinguish between the different types of walking routes, in 
particular public rights of way and permissive paths.

It doesn't use the standard Mapnik approach, but kothic.js, which is a 
client-side rendering library which takes GeoJSON data and MapCSS compiled into 
JavaScript.

Nick


From: Mark Goodge 
Sent: 24 July 2020 14:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings



On 24/07/2020 13:20, Martin Wynne wrote:
>   > but most people I know aren't aware of OSM.
>
> I've been trying to persuade country-walking groups to use OSM. There is
> a lot of useful stuff there not shown on OS Explorer -- stiles, kissing
> gates, benches, bus stops, all pubs, cafes, etc. It's a lot more
> up-to-date, and if they find anything missing they can add it themselves
> for the benefit of others.
>
> Most of them go back to OS Explorer when they find UK public rights of
> way are not shown in different colours on the OSM standard map.

Yes; this is an issue specifically for map users on foot. With roads,
the question of legality is much less of an issue - almost all roads of
any significance are public highways, and those that are not are usually
clearly marked as such. But with footpaths and farm tracks in open
countryside, there is often no obvious visual distinction, and yet the
legality is a critical factor to users. This is an area in which OS maps
are much more useful to walkers.

On the other hand, one of the areas where OSM is better than OS is that
we map permissive paths, which OS tends not to unless they are big
enough to also be usable by vehicles (and even then, it doesn't have any
means of indicating permission).

This is one of the reasons why it would be nice to have a UK-specific
stylesheet for OSM. The data is there, so there's no reason why it cant
be rendered. Or, alternatively, a dedicated "outdoors" stylesheet which
focusses on hiking, biking, etc.

Mark

___
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] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Nick Whitelegg]

.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse 
is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way 
(except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths 
are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a 
permissive path' notice.

Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common


I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, 
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are 
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the 
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' 
to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive 
use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

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 always preferable to 
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and 
housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as 
likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

Adam
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Nick Whitelegg]

I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, 
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are 
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the 
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' 
to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive 
use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

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 always preferable to 
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and 
housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as 
likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

Adam
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Updated MapThePaths app - with tagged GPS traces

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Roger,

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed this now. It wasn't actually supposed 
to show the access area polygon at all; the server was returning anything with 
a 'designation' tag. I overlooked the fact that 'designation' might be used for 
things other than rights of way, hence the polygon was appearing.

I have now fixed this so only ways with specified values for the 'designation' 
tag, i.e. the allowed values for rights of way, are retuened.

Nick



From: Roger Calvert 
Sent: 23 May 2020 13:07
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Updated MapThePaths app - with tagged GPS traces

Nick,

I have noticed an anomaly in the MapThePaths site. Normally, clicking on a PROW 
shows its designation. But in my area, it does not seem to work if the path is 
within an access area. For example, footpath 505 008 (Blawith, Cumbria) crosses 
the access area boundary. Clicking outside the access area shows the reference. 
Inside the access area does not. If you close the OSM footpaths layer, the 
click then works.

Thanks,

Roger

On 23/05/2020 12:28, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hello everyone,

To follow up an email of just over a week ago, I have now updated the 
MapThePaths Android app (https://mapthepaths.org.uk/app.html; 
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.org.mapthepaths.android) so 
that tagged GPS traces can be created. You can record a GPS trace, and tag each 
segment (GPX ) with the current path designation and path type (grass 
path, dirt track, paved service road, etc) by means of drop-down lists.

The GPS traces can be uploaded to OSM and to the MapThePaths server. The 
high-level designation and path types are converted to OSM highway, designation 
and surface tags, and each track segment tagged with these three tags.

It will shortly be possible to view the uploaded GPS traces on the MapThePaths 
website as a selectable layer.

As I said in my original email, one of my aims is to provide a way for OSM 
beginners to easily survey rights of way. The UI is still very rudimentary; I 
am not a UX expert so what would be really nice is for someone with good UX 
skills to come up with a better UI aimed at allowing beginners to easily use 
the app. My general idea is that users can select high-level, unambiguous 
designations (public footpath, etc) and path types (grass path, dirt track etc) 
via the UI. If I get some nice designs, which the community is happy with as a 
whole, plus some nice graphics, I'm quite happy to then use those designs and 
graphics in code.

The other component then needed is the JOSM plugin (either a new one or, 
probably bettter, a modification of an existing one -  I'm thinking of the KML 
plugin that was mentioned - as we discussed last week) to allow the tagged 
traces to be imported into JOSM for use by experienced mappers to actually 
create the OSM ways. An alert system would be nice also, to alert experienced 
users of any new traces in their area.

I have also added a new option to turn off the 'snap map to current GPS 
location' feature, allowing users to pan the map around.

Any further thoughts, please let me know.

Thanks,
Nick




Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


--


Roger Calvert

www.rogercalvert.me.uk<http://www.rogercalvert.me.uk>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Updated MapThePaths app - with tagged GPS traces

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

To follow up an email of just over a week ago, I have now updated the 
MapThePaths Android app (https://mapthepaths.org.uk/app.html; 
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.org.mapthepaths.android) so 
that tagged GPS traces can be created. You can record a GPS trace, and tag each 
segment (GPX ) with the current path designation and path type (grass 
path, dirt track, paved service road, etc) by means of drop-down lists.

The GPS traces can be uploaded to OSM and to the MapThePaths server. The 
high-level designation and path types are converted to OSM highway, designation 
and surface tags, and each track segment tagged with these three tags.

It will shortly be possible to view the uploaded GPS traces on the MapThePaths 
website as a selectable layer.

As I said in my original email, one of my aims is to provide a way for OSM 
beginners to easily survey rights of way. The UI is still very rudimentary; I 
am not a UX expert so what would be really nice is for someone with good UX 
skills to come up with a better UI aimed at allowing beginners to easily use 
the app. My general idea is that users can select high-level, unambiguous 
designations (public footpath, etc) and path types (grass path, dirt track etc) 
via the UI. If I get some nice designs, which the community is happy with as a 
whole, plus some nice graphics, I'm quite happy to then use those designs and 
graphics in code.

The other component then needed is the JOSM plugin (either a new one or, 
probably bettter, a modification of an existing one -  I'm thinking of the KML 
plugin that was mentioned - as we discussed last week) to allow the tagged 
traces to be imported into JOSM for use by experienced mappers to actually 
create the OSM ways. An alert system would be nice also, to alert experienced 
users of any new traces in their area.

I have also added a new option to turn off the 'snap map to current GPS 
location' feature, allowing users to pan the map around.

Any further thoughts, please let me know.

Thanks,
Nick





Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Tony and Gareth,

Thanks for your thoughts.

My main thought was a specialised JOSM plugin - I did take a look at OSM's main 
GPX trace facility but it appears not to preserve tags in the uploaded trace. 
Some versions of the MapThePaths app (the first version, and the current 
version on Gitlab) allow GPX upload to OSM but the tags are removed.

So I'm thinking that my own storage (I have quite a bit of available storage) 
and a custom JOSM plugin, which, for example, creates colour-coded and 
clickable traces showing the ROW designation, surface and highway tags might be 
the way to go.

Thanks,
Nick

From: Gareth L 
Sent: 14 May 2020 09:56
To: Tony OSM 
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to 
OSM (perhaps!)

I wonder if it would be possible to use the GPS trace feature on OSM for this? 
Maybe format the name in a way to make it easier to retrieve?

Takes care of the storage of the traces.


On 14 May 2020, at 09:22, Tony OSM  wrote:



Hi Nick

I like the two stage approach - surveying then mapping. It would work well - 
some of my friends like walking but can't map to save their life, whereas I 
can't walk far but love mapping - Win Win for us all.


May I suggest that a layer be created for JOSM with all the paths and their 
details as provided for MapThePaths. Personally I find it easier to work with 
JOSM and I have learnt to create a style to highlight PROW's, but I don't know 
how to create a JOSM layer.

Separate layers would allow us to manually transfer from PROW layer to MAP 
layer thus avoiding the mechanical import rules, and would allow us to manually 
conflate where a path is already mapped but PROW data is absent.

A layer containing the surveyed GPS data so that all the sources we need are 
available would be awesome.


I may be asking for a workflow that is close to existing, if that is the case I 
am able to test and document the workflow for the UK wiki if that would be 
helpful.


Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 13/05/2020 18:11, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Oops... sorry one or two editing errors in the last paragraph.

I meant to say:

"They [the non-expert user] select ROW type and path surface via a nice 
interface, and then a tagged GPX trace is generated, *with trksegs tagged with 
ROW designation and surface* (which was done by the first version of the app 
anyway). This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and volunteer expert 
users *are alerted*. Said expert user then downloads the GPX trace and, *using 
the tags in the trksegs of the GPX* then edits in JOSM, perhaps via a JOSM 
plugin - or even directly in the MapThePaths web app. (I am possibly thinking 
of adding way creation into the MapThePaths web app anyway, time depending)."

Nick

____
From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 13 May 2020 18:08
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

Hi,

Just to continue with the theme of rights of way mapping, I've been noticing 
that there are still large tracts of England and Wales away from the 'honeypot' 
areas with little or now ROW mapping at all meaning there's still quite a big 
job to be done.

As you may remember I have been developing a companion app to MapThePaths. In 
the first version of this (around two years ago) I experimented with 
auto-converting GPX traces to OSM ways. However I was dissatisfied with the 
results, the ways generated were really rather nasty and I ended up having to 
prettify them significantly in JOSM afterwards, rendering the auto-creation 
facility a little pointless. Consequently later versions of the app have 
focused on merely presenting the council and OSM data overlaid (like the 
website),  with only limited editing facilities, to change the designation of a 
path.

However (and I may have mentioned this before, it's been a while) I am 
wondering about a 'two-user' approach in which a new user merely does the GPX 
survey, using an easy to use UI (a refined version of the MapThePaths app with 
the UI re-designed by someone more versed in UX than myself).

They select ROW type and path surface via a nice interface, and then a tagged 
GPX trace is generated (which was done by the first version of the app anyway). 
This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and volunteer expert users. 
Said expert user then downloads the GPX trace and then edits in JOSM, perhaps 
via a JOSM plugin - or even directly in the MapThePaths web app. (I am possibly 
thinking of adding way creation into the MapThePaths web app anyway, time 
depending).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Nick




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openst

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

[Nick Whitelegg]

Oops... sorry one or two editing errors in the last paragraph.

I meant to say:

"They [the non-expert user] select ROW type and path surface via a nice 
interface, and then a tagged GPX trace is generated, *with trksegs tagged with 
ROW designation and surface* (which was done by the first version of the app 
anyway). This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and volunteer expert 
users *are alerted*. Said expert user then downloads the GPX trace and, *using 
the tags in the trksegs of the GPX* then edits in JOSM, perhaps via a JOSM 
plugin - or even directly in the MapThePaths web app. (I am possibly thinking 
of adding way creation into the MapThePaths web app anyway, time depending)."

Nick

____
From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 13 May 2020 18:08
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

Hi,

Just to continue with the theme of rights of way mapping, I've been noticing 
that there are still large tracts of England and Wales away from the 'honeypot' 
areas with little or now ROW mapping at all meaning there's still quite a big 
job to be done.

As you may remember I have been developing a companion app to MapThePaths. In 
the first version of this (around two years ago) I experimented with 
auto-converting GPX traces to OSM ways. However I was dissatisfied with the 
results, the ways generated were really rather nasty and I ended up having to 
prettify them significantly in JOSM afterwards, rendering the auto-creation 
facility a little pointless. Consequently later versions of the app have 
focused on merely presenting the council and OSM data overlaid (like the 
website),  with only limited editing facilities, to change the designation of a 
path.

However (and I may have mentioned this before, it's been a while) I am 
wondering about a 'two-user' approach in which a new user merely does the GPX 
survey, using an easy to use UI (a refined version of the MapThePaths app with 
the UI re-designed by someone more versed in UX than myself).

They select ROW type and path surface via a nice interface, and then a tagged 
GPX trace is generated (which was done by the first version of the app anyway). 
This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and volunteer expert users. 
Said expert user then downloads the GPX trace and then edits in JOSM, perhaps 
via a JOSM plugin - or even directly in the MapThePaths web app. (I am possibly 
thinking of adding way creation into the MapThePaths web app anyway, time 
depending).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

Just to continue with the theme of rights of way mapping, I've been noticing 
that there are still large tracts of England and Wales away from the 'honeypot' 
areas with little or now ROW mapping at all meaning there's still quite a big 
job to be done.

As you may remember I have been developing a companion app to MapThePaths. In 
the first version of this (around two years ago) I experimented with 
auto-converting GPX traces to OSM ways. However I was dissatisfied with the 
results, the ways generated were really rather nasty and I ended up having to 
prettify them significantly in JOSM afterwards, rendering the auto-creation 
facility a little pointless. Consequently later versions of the app have 
focused on merely presenting the council and OSM data overlaid (like the 
website),  with only limited editing facilities, to change the designation of a 
path.

However (and I may have mentioned this before, it's been a while) I am 
wondering about a 'two-user' approach in which a new user merely does the GPX 
survey, using an easy to use UI (a refined version of the MapThePaths app with 
the UI re-designed by someone more versed in UX than myself).

They select ROW type and path surface via a nice interface, and then a tagged 
GPX trace is generated (which was done by the first version of the app anyway). 
This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and volunteer expert users. 
Said expert user then downloads the GPX trace and then edits in JOSM, perhaps 
via a JOSM plugin - or even directly in the MapThePaths web app. (I am possibly 
thinking of adding way creation into the MapThePaths web app anyway, time 
depending).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] City centre landuse tagging

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

Meant to include this in my other post, but...I'm noticing that several cities 
in the UK (Bristol, Bath and Chester are good examples) don't seem to tag the 
city centre area with an appropriate landuse tag (presumably retail, commercial 
or residential).

This is something I've missed over the years... but what is the common practice 
for tagging city centre areas? Presumably the above three landuses are not used 
because city centres are typically a mixrure of all three.

What I'm trying to achieve is a 'built-up-area' rendering which covers the 
whole of the built up area of a town or city. Not looking for administrative 
boundaries - but the actual physically built-up area.

Thanks,
Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] New, hopefully improved Freemap

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

As you may now I was strongly considering closing down my Freemap (OSM site 
focusing on rights of way in England and Wales) site after years without having 
the time to update it.

However I did get one or two requests to keep it going, and I have found that 
with the situation of the last couple of months I've had a lot of time on my 
hands and have finally had the time to address many of its long-standing issues.

Consequently a hopefully improved version is now available, both at the 
original domain (free-map.org.uk) and also freemap.org.uk (no hyphen).

The main issues I've addressed have been:

  *   fixing multipolygon relations. This was actually trivial; with the 
toolchain I'm using (osmosis-osm2pgsql-postgis-own custom tileserver-kothic.js) 
it appears to 'just work'
  *   a wider range of rendering, in particular, urban landuse is shown as well 
as military areas, beaches, wetlands and scree.
  *   fixing some annoying tile boundary artefacts. The latest version of 
kothic.js appears to have fixed these.

What has helped a lot also, is moving it to a Hetzner machine with 16GB memory, 
16 times as much as my original server, and much more disc space, sharing the 
API and DB with my other projects (Hikar, OpenTrailView and MapThePaths). 
Trying to keep the site going on a 1GB VM was a nightmare at times.

The main other change though is that it is just a rendering rather than a 
full-blown application. I am intending to focus on the rendering; the other 
features such as walking-route sharing did not attract as much interest as I 
had hoped and consequently remain withdrawn.

Any suggestions for rendering improvements are welcome!

Thanks,
Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

[Nick Whitelegg]

>Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22"
>style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other
>instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite
>Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few
>mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM
>to this thread to get their input too.


Hello Robert,

I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE 
4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP as 
a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use.

In terms of how I arrive at the references, I sourced the data from the rowmaps 
site and applied a script which looked for a particular field (I forget its 
name) in the rowmaps data. This is done consistently across all counties.

I don't really mind too much what people use to be honest, obviously something 
like 'Studland FP 1' or similar would be more descriptive, but would require an 
extra step to look up the parish name.

Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks up 
parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive 
prow_refs?

On the other hand some counties do not use parish refs at all in hhe number, 
though they do mention them in the full ref (e.g. FERNHURST 1254). The 
Chichester district of West Sussex (not OGL, by the way - unfortunately from my 
POV as it's an area I'm interested in) appears to use a simple number for all 
PROW refs, ranging from about 1-3500. This is not consistent in a given parish, 
e.g. numbers between 1200-1299 appear to be spread between Fernhurst, Lynchmere 
and Milland parishes.

Nick





From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: 16 April 2020 14:18
To: talk-gb 
Subject: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW
comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new
counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset.
I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different
formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select
one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM.

One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route
number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in
Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the
full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their
Definitive Map officer about this and got the response:

"Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and
parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system,
but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who
will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and
describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish,
status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish
number, status and route number."

The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own
online map at 
https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx
. Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this
style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a
space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the
parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of
routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name.

Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22"
style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other
instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite
Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few
mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM
to this thread to get their input too.

Best wishes,
Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

___
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] MapThePaths editing bug - fixed

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Martyn,

OK - I'll add that in. Will need to be a text field as it's conceivable that it 
could be added via on the ground observatons (e.g. the Isle of Wight generally 
shows ROW refs on its signposting and it also occurs in other locations 
occasionally) as well as from the data presented in MapThePaths.

Nick

From: Martyn Evans 
Sent: 07 April 2020 12:08
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths editing bug - fixed

Good Job!  I'd only tried to use it yesterday after my approved 'exercise'.  
One extra possible addition: could it also add the source:prow_ref  with the 
appropriate data source?

regards, Martyn

On 07/04/2020 11:16, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hi,

I've just discovered that MapThePaths had a problem with editing which only 
came to light just now, but it will have been present ever since I moved it to 
another server several weeks ago. Essentially, a different configuration on the 
new server was producing (sensible) warning messages which corrupted the JSON 
returned - and highlighting a bug.

This bug is now fixed, and MapThePaths editing appears to be working again now.

Sorry for the downtime if anyone was trying to use it recently.

Thanks,
Nick



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] MapThePaths editing bug - fixed

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

I've just discovered that MapThePaths had a problem with editing which only 
came to light just now, but it will have been present ever since I moved it to 
another server several weeks ago. Essentially, a different configuration on the 
new server was producing (sensible) warning messages which corrupted the JSON 
returned - and highlighting a bug.

This bug is now fixed, and MapThePaths editing appears to be working again now.

Sorry for the downtime if anyone was trying to use it recently.

Thanks,
Nick
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'Freemap' - partial reprieve

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Martin,

OK - yes, sorry. http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/freemap

Getting some subtleties with dealing with the trailing slash, which I'll need 
to investigate. Seems to be a bit more subtle to deal with than just adding it 
as an optional character in a regex pattern.

Nick


From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 23 March 2020 14:18
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'Freemap' - partial reprieve

On 23/03/2020 13:57, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

> You can access it via
>
> http:///www.mapthepaths.org.uk/freemap


Hi Nick,

the extra / makes that link invalid. :)

Should be:

  http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/freemap

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

[Talk-GB] 'Freemap' - partial reprieve

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

Although my long-standing, albeit not-updated-in-ages Freemap site 
(www.free-map.org.uk) is closing down at the end of the month, Freemap is 
having a partial reprieve as a mode on MapThePaths.

You can access it via

http:///www.mapthepaths.org.uk/freemap

On reflection, even though I do not want the maintenance effort and expense of 
a separate server and applictation for Freemap, I still think (even though it 
looks a bit dated) the layer is useful for showing rights-of-way and permissive 
paths on an OSM-derived map with contours.

Rolling it into MapThePaths as an alternative mode (in addition to the existing 
'standard' and historic maps mode) will considerably save on the maintenance 
effort, particularly as they both have the same back-end.

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths: possible interrupted service this week

[Nick Whitelegg]

... sorry for all the emails: but further update - it's now up, but running 
HTTP not HTTPS (as it used to).
Hopefully HTTPS will be enabled very soon.

Thanks,
Nick




From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 12 February 2020 09:59
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths: possible interrupted service this week


Hello everyone,

To update: the site is transferred now but I am having some DNS issues 
(relating I think to IPv6 DNS records) meaning that the site is still 
inaccessible.
I have asked the new hosting provider about this; basically I want to run it as 
HTTPS but these DNS issues are preventing the certificate from being installed.

Apologies for the ongoing downtime, hopefully this will be resolved in the next 
day or so.

Thanks,
Nick


From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 10 February 2020 11:21
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths: possible interrupted service this week

Hello everyone,

Just a heads-up: I am transferring MapThePaths to the same server I use to run 
my other projects, Hikar and OpenTrailView, this week.

This means that there may be interruption or unavailability in service, 
starting today.

Thanks,
Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths: possible interrupted service this week

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

To update: the site is transferred now but I am having some DNS issues 
(relating I think to IPv6 DNS records) meaning that the site is still 
inaccessible.
I have asked the new hosting provider about this; basically I want to run it as 
HTTPS but these DNS issues are preventing the certificate from being installed.

Apologies for the ongoing downtime, hopefully this will be resolved in the next 
day or so.

Thanks,
Nick


From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 10 February 2020 11:21
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths: possible interrupted service this week

Hello everyone,

Just a heads-up: I am transferring MapThePaths to the same server I use to run 
my other projects, Hikar and OpenTrailView, this week.

This means that there may be interruption or unavailability in service, 
starting today.

Thanks,
Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Freemap (free-map.org.uk) - potential shutdown

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

As part of rationalising my server space and hosted projects, I am proposing 
shutting down my (very old) England and Wales footpath mapping site Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk).

This is basically because I no longer have the time to maintain and improve it 
and obviously incurs storage space and hosting costs, and I believe it is not 
used so much these days as it has been superseded by other projects.

Before I do so however, please let me know if you still use Freemap - if people 
are still using it, I will keep it up.

The underlying Freemap API, which powers several other projects including 
MapThePaths and Hikar, however, will remain up (albeit on a different server).

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths: possible interrupted service this week

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

Just a heads-up: I am transferring MapThePaths to the same server I use to run 
my other projects, Hikar and OpenTrailView, this week.

This means that there may be interruption or unavailability in service, 
starting today.

Thanks,
Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Panorama Mapping Party with TrekView - May 23 - Ashurst, New Forest, UK

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Jez,

I think it probably would, as it would be of interest to open mapping 
enthusiasts, aims to collect open panoramic data, and OSM is used to connect 
the panoramas together - so I don't see why not.

I'll put it up when I have a chance.

Nick


From: Jez Nicholson 
Sent: 08 February 2020 11:39
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Cc: osm-talk ; Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Panorama Mapping Party with TrekView - May 23 - Ashurst, 
New Forest, UK

Nice hookup with Trek Viewdoes this warrant adding to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Current_events as a mapping party? I always 
like seeing UK events on there.

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:37 PM Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hello everyone,

As some of you may know I am developing OpenTrailView 
(https://opentrailview.org), a pure 100% FOSS StreetView-like application for 
off-road routes such as hiking trails which uses OpenStreetMap data to 
auto-connect the panoramas together.

Recently I've been working with Trek View (trekview.org<http://trekview.org>), 
an organisation which aims to capture panoramas of the natural world.
In their words: TrekView is a not-for-profit organisation using the power of 
panoramic photography to help educate and protect against further destruction 
of our beautiful planet. In 2020, they're launching Trekker Camp. Think virtual 
field trips. Trekker Camp will design and deliver immersive learning 
experiences to give students (7-11) the necessary understanding and skills to 
tackle the world's most pressing issues, from ocean health to climate change.

TrekView loan 360 camera packs (using the GoPro Fusion) to allow people to 
capture imagery of the natural world, from off-road routes including hiking 
routes and rivers. As well as Google Street View, TrekView's software now 
allows contributors to upload to OpenTrailView.

On to the most important aspect of this post. On May 23rd, and inspired by OSM 
mapping parties, we're organising a Panorama Mapping Party at Ashurst, New 
Forest, Hampshire, UK, with the aim of intensively capturing panoramic imagery 
of the paths and trails in the area which will then be uploaded to 
OpenTrailView. As OSM coverage in the area is exceptionally good, this should 
then result in the creation of extensive walk-through tours of the area.

The form will be similar to mapping parties. The plan is to meet at 11:00 
(there's a train which arrives from London at the local station, Ashurst New 
Forest, at around 10:45), plan, capture imagery and then get together in the 
pub afterwards.

More details (with OSM map showing location): 
https://www.trekview.org/blog/2020/pano-party-new-forest-uk-may-23-2020/


So if you're interested in 360 photography and OSM, then do come along! 360 
camera packs will be available to borrow and use on the day, or if you have 
your own device, please bring it along.

Thanks,
Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Panorama Mapping Party with TrekView - May 23 - Ashurst, New Forest, UK

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

As some of you may know I am developing OpenTrailView 
(https://opentrailview.org), a pure 100% FOSS StreetView-like application for 
off-road routes such as hiking trails which uses OpenStreetMap data to 
auto-connect the panoramas together.

Recently I've been working with Trek View (trekview.org), an organisation which 
aims to capture panoramas of the natural world.
In their words: TrekView is a not-for-profit organisation using the power of 
panoramic photography to help educate and protect against further destruction 
of our beautiful planet. In 2020, they're launching Trekker Camp. Think virtual 
field trips. Trekker Camp will design and deliver immersive learning 
experiences to give students (7-11) the necessary understanding and skills to 
tackle the world's most pressing issues, from ocean health to climate change.

TrekView loan 360 camera packs (using the GoPro Fusion) to allow people to 
capture imagery of the natural world, from off-road routes including hiking 
routes and rivers. As well as Google Street View, TrekView's software now 
allows contributors to upload to OpenTrailView.

On to the most important aspect of this post. On May 23rd, and inspired by OSM 
mapping parties, we're organising a Panorama Mapping Party at Ashurst, New 
Forest, Hampshire, UK, with the aim of intensively capturing panoramic imagery 
of the paths and trails in the area which will then be uploaded to 
OpenTrailView. As OSM coverage in the area is exceptionally good, this should 
then result in the creation of extensive walk-through tours of the area.

The form will be similar to mapping parties. The plan is to meet at 11:00 
(there's a train which arrives from London at the local station, Ashurst New 
Forest, at around 10:45), plan, capture imagery and then get together in the 
pub afterwards.

More details (with OSM map showing location): 
https://www.trekview.org/blog/2020/pano-party-new-forest-uk-may-23-2020/


So if you're interested in 360 photography and OSM, then do come along! 360 
camera packs will be available to borrow and use on the day, or if you have 
your own device, please bring it along.

Thanks,
Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths - now with way-splitting functionality

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

Would like to announce an update to MapThePaths (mapthepaths.org.uk) - a site 
which allows OSM contributors to compare council rights of way data with the 
RoW data in OSM, and in doing so, allows users to discover which paths need 
designation tags or even need mapping from scratch.

Since it was launched MapThePaths has allowed users to add designation and 
prow_ref tags to paths. However it now allows contributors to split existing 
ways - this is particularly useful as there are many cases where an OSM way 
covers both right-of-way and non-right-of-way segments.

To access the editing functionality, log into OSM via MapThePaths and zoom in, 
and activate 'Edit' mode.

To split a way, highlight it (by clicking on it) and then click on the node 
where you want to split it.

To add a node to a way (which may be necessary if there is currently no node at 
the desired split point), highlight a way, select the 'add node' mode (top 
right of screen) and then click on the highlighted way.

This functionality has actually been live for a week or so but originally there 
were a number of bugs. These are now, I believe, fixed.

Please let me know any desired improvements, or any bugs. If you encounter a 
bug please give me the precise location (lat, lon, OSM way ID) and what actions 
you took, so I can try to replicate it.

Thanks,
Nick


___
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

[Nick Whitelegg]

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] Rights of way layer - raster and vector tiles

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Rob,

Glad you're finding MTP useful!

Incidentally the way-split functionality has been on the MapThePaths 'todo' 
list for quite some time. I will try and get round to it as soon as I can - 
probably the Christmas break now.

Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 11 November 2019 21:13
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Rights of way layer - raster and vector tiles

Hi all,

Have been enjoying using Nick's MapThePaths.org.uk 
website recently. In most cases I can make the edit to OSM using the built in 
editing functionality. However from time to time there is a need to fire up 
JOSM or iD editor in order to split an OSM way. In doing so I was looking for a 
ProW layer to add to the editor to guide my edits.

Using Mapbox Studio I have created such a layer.

Raster tiles
In JOSM add it using:

wmts:https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/robjn/ck2nvvl8u06p91cqrlcvmzcsd/wmts?access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoicm9iam4iLCJhIjoid0dYNkY1QSJ9.A-0lzQOawGYICYPfURsjDA

And in iD Editor add it using:

https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/robjn/ck2nvvl8u06p91cqrlcvmzcsd/tiles/256/{zoom}/{x}/{y}?access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoicm9iam4iLCJhIjoid0dYNkY1QSJ9.A-0lzQOawGYICYPfURsjDA

A few things to note:

Firstly, all Rights of Way data is currently shown. I was hoping to filter out 
the data which is not universally accepted as compatible with OSM within Mapbox 
Studio but it seems like you cannot use wildcards in the expressions there. If 
there is interest in this layer, I will reload the data in to Mapbox Studio so 
that I can apply styling (e.g. fade/blur) to the data that is not OSM 
compatible (it can be used as a prompt for a ground survey).

Footpaths are pink, bridleways are green, restricted byways - orange/brown, 
BOATS - blue.

The text label is || as is stored in 
the KML files on rowmaps.org. Use the Local Authority Code 
to confirm against Robert Whittaker's site 
(https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/) that you are editing one of the OSM 
compatible areas.

In iD Editor the text label does not show up as it is black on a black 
background. It is also not possible to have this tile layer and aerial imagery 
layer shown at the same time. See "Vector Tiles" section below for a workaround.

I have added a black diamond at the end of each way. Unfortunately in Mapbox 
Studio I could only find how to add this symbol at one end of each way so it's 
not complete but hopefully still useful. I've done a previous test in 
Warwickshire to add black marks at both ends of each way. If useful let me know 
so I can process this data and load it into Mapbox Studio for styling.

Vector tiles
Mapbox also creates vector tiles of the data. This can be loaded into iD 
Editor. To do so open iD, press "f" to open the Map Data dialogue and within 
Custom Data paste the following:

https://api.mapbox.com/v4/robjn.cc9hly53/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.mvt?access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoicm9iam4iLCJhIjoid0dYNkY1QSJ9.A-0lzQOawGYICYPfURsjDA

This then shows the data in bright pink. Text labels are also in bright pink 
solving the problem of black text on black background above. You can overlay 
this on top of aerial imagery. The other great thing is that you can select the 
ways just as if they were OSM ways. Selecting one shows the extent of the ways 
and it's tags. Given that all ways are drawn in pink when using vector tiles 
you will need to select each to confirm it's right of way class. Maybe one day 
there will be simple rules within iD that allow us to colour vector tiles data 
based on the tags.

I'm not yet aware of any way to add the mvt vector tiles to JOSM.

P.S. I am on a free tier within Mapbox Studio. If popular I might run out so if 
the layer stops working you know why! We could see if Mapbox will allow us (or 
OSM UK) so additional free allowance.

Best regards,
Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project

[Nick Whitelegg]

The main aim, though, of this project is to investigate, using the historical 
maps, historical rights of way for the point of view of gathering evidence to 
re-open them before 2026.

A possible side-effect of this is to locate new paths to map for OSM. Such 
paths would not, of course, be tagged with a designation (unless they are 
legally re-opened) but if there is evidence of use, they could certainly be 
added as a highway=footway at the very least.

Nick



From: David Woolley 
Sent: 01 October 2019 13:56
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' 
project

On 30/09/2019 18:25, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing
> council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex'
> effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on
> the historical maps which do not correspond either to current council
> RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus would be candidates for
> investigation to see if the path is in a usable state or there is
> evidence of use.

Such paths are not going to have finger boards with "public footpath" on
them.  In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping
rights of way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any
designation that only appears in a map.

As such, you will end up with at best a permissive status recorded on
OSM.  Even that is actually likely to be subjective.

___
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] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

Was just thinking whether it would be worth us (as in OSM UK) resurrecting the 
'missing paths for 2026' project?

A quick reminder - we have until 2026 to record historical rights of way which 
have fallen out of use in recent times, and the combination of OSM, council 
data and historical map layers (which I have been granted access to by NLS for 
MapThePaths) would be a good way to identify possible missing paths.

I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing council 
data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex' effect. This allows 
the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on the historical maps which 
do not correspond either to current council RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus 
would be candidates for investigation to see if the path is in a usable state 
or there is evidence of use.

http://mapthepaths.org.uk/?mode=1

Obviously it's perhaps not the best time of year to launch an outdoor project - 
but the next few months would be a good time to develop the project ready for 
use in the spring.

Anyone keen to work on this?
Gitlab: https://gitlab.com/nickw1/mapthepaths/

Thanks,
Nick



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates and app

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,


With spring here and the footpath mapping season underway, I thought I'd give a 
quick update on MapThePaths (www.mapthepaths.org.uk).


Firstly, in response to an earlier request, I have added a facility to 
customise the colours of the different types of right of way.


Secondly I have updated the OGL council list (only two, Herefordshire and 
Dorset).


Thirdly, there is now a MapThePaths Android app available as a pre-release, 
beta version on Google Play. This allows you to view council and OSM data in 
the field while walking, and also (if logged into OSM with your normal account) 
allows you to live-edit the designation of paths.

There is also an (experimental, use with caution) feature to perform a GPS 
survey (selecting the right of way designation and path type as you go) and 
auto-create appropriately-tagged OSM ways from it. These auto-created ways are 
auto-connected with existing OSM data where possible. However - do use with 
caution (and the app tells you this when uploading), the auto-created ways may 
be subject to artefacts from GPS inaccuracy and therefore you should refine 
with JOSM or a similar editor after uploading. To help you, the app gives you 
the option to upload your full GPX trace to OSM as well as the auto-created 
ways.


As the app is a pre-release, you have to search for its app id, 
"uk.org.mapthepaths.android" on Google Play, to find it. Or, direct link:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.org.mapthepaths.android



Would be great to get feedback on the app from MapThePaths users who would like 
to use something similar in-the-field.



In terms of future plans for the actual website, I had one request a couple of 
months back for a way-splitting feature,  for use in cases where part of an 
existing OSM way is along a RoW and part isn't. Apologies for the delay on this 
up to now (I've been focusing on Hokar, my AR project) I'm hoping to implement 
this soon (late April/early May) all being well.


Thanks,

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Nick Whitelegg]

I would urge the use of 'foot=yes' or 'foot=permissive' for paths which are 
_not_ rights of way but _do_ have public access (implicitly or explicitly) 
rather than simply 'highway=footway' or 'highway=path'. There needs to be a way 
to distinguish between non-rights-of-way which definitely have public access 
and those which may not - so that, for example, routing software will not try 
and route you along some path which is private but is just missing a 'PRIVATE' 
sign currently.


For instance a path between roads in towns which is not a right of way I'd use 
'foot=yes', while one in the countryside marked as permissive I'd use 
'foot=permissive'.



Nick


From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: 15 March 2019 18:24:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

>From the footnote of that table:
"The United Kingdom Tagging 
Guidelines
 state that highway=path, when used it the UK, implies "a generic narrow path 
that is used in conjunction with access tags". This makes the default "yes" 
assumption dubious."

What does foot=yes mean?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_examples
Some wiki pages say it's 'legal right' another says "A urban path without any 
legal status suitable for walking."

This is a reason why I take much of the wiki with a pinch of salt. 'foot=yes' 
should be used in combination with the access tag (usually when it's  set to 
'no' or 'private') not as a stand alone sub tag (ie highway=footway;foot=yes).

Are there any data users who use 'highway=footway;foot=yes' to distinguish from 
other footways?

DaveF


On 15/03/2019 11:05, David Woolley wrote:
On 15/03/2019 01:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes.

They do, and they are country specific.





___
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] MapThePaths - update

[Nick Whitelegg]

.. DNS issue now fixed, now back up.

Do please note there may be further temporary interruptions this week.


Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 18 February 2019 15:29:57
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - update



Hello everyone,


To follow from my previous message: MapThePaths is being transferred to another 
server (the Freemap server) this week.

While this is done there may be DNS issues meaning it can't be accessed via 
mapthepaths.org.uk.


In the meantime please use the IP address:

http://46.43.8.107/


Thanks,

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths - update

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,


To follow from my previous message: MapThePaths is being transferred to another 
server (the Freemap server) this week.

While this is done there may be DNS issues meaning it can't be accessed via 
mapthepaths.org.uk.


In the meantime please use the IP address:

http://46.43.8.107/


Thanks,

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM augmented reality project - affordable hosting recommendations or Overpass?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,


Thanks for the suggestions. I've had an offer of hosting (many thanks!) but 
it's good to know what options are available.

Roland - thanks for the info on Overpass. Am aware that GeoJSON isn't supposed 
to be epsg:3857 but I do it that way as it saves a reprojection stage.


Thank,s

Nick



From: Roland Olbricht 
Sent: 05 February 2019 16:59:48
To: Nick Whitelegg; d...@openstreetmap.org; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM augmented reality project - affordable hosting 
recommendations or Overpass?

Hi,

> As an alternative, I was wondering how acceptable it would be to use the
> Overpass API to obtain the data? Downloaded data would be cached on the
> device so for a given area, data would only need to be downloaded once.

I'm fine with such a usage. The fine print is about other issues:

- Overpass API does support GeoJSON indirectly, but GeoJSON does not
support EPSG:3857, see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7946#section-4

To get GeoJSON I suggest

[out:json];
way(south,west,north,east)[highway];
convert link ::=::,::geom=geom();
out geom;

where (south,west,north,east) is the bounding box.

As an act of courtesy I suggest to set the "Accept-Encoding: deflate,
gzip" header and use

[out:json];
way(south,west,north,east)[highway];
if (count(ways) < 2)
{
   convert link ::=::,::geom=geom();
   out geom;
}
else
{
   make error what="Too many ways in this bounding box";
   out;
}

This compresses the data and bails out if there are more than 2 ways
in the bounding box, corresponding to between 1 MB and 2 MB of data.
Overpass would happily deliver about 1 GB per user and day, but the
users may have data plans with rather 1 GB per month.

Thanks,
Roland
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] OSM augmented reality project - affordable hosting recommendations or Overpass?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,


This weekend at FOSDEM I gave a talk on "Hikar", my augmented reality project 
for walkers/hikers making use of OSM data to show trails and virtual signposts 
on the device. (see http://www.free-map.org.uk/common/hikar.html for info and 
screenshots).

At the moment however it only works in Britain, Ireland and Greece due to the 
constraints of my server. Would be great to get it working in the whole of 
Europe (I realise the world might be a bit much at this stage!), so I wondered 
if anyone had any affordable hosting recommendations? Hikar downloads GeoJSON 
from a server containing OSM data (see below) and caches it on the device.


Basically what I need is an OSM PostGIS database (of the type used for Mapnik 
rendering) but it only needs to contain highways and selected POIs (as nodes) - 
nothing else. Ideally I also need PHP with the postgres extension as that is 
what my service is written in at the moment. However, if the best solution was 
an environment without PHP, I would be prepared to rewrite in say node.js.

Would be looking for hosting of not much more than approximately £20/EUR 20 per 
month, perhaps £30/EUR 30 as a maximum.


My current server has 1GB of memory and can just about cope with the areas 
above, so I suspect for the whole of Europe more memory would be required. 
Storage requirements for Britain, Ireland and Greece is perhaps (as an 
estimate) 10GB or a little less.


The same service would also serve OpenTrailView, a recently resurrected project 
to create a fully FOSS StreetView-type system for walkers and hikers. (see 
opentrailview.org - _very_ early demo!)


As an alternative, I was wondering how acceptable it would be to use the 
Overpass API to obtain the data? Downloaded data would be cached on the device 
so for a given area, data would only need to be downloaded once.


Thanks,

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lees Footpath mapping: results

[Nick Whitelegg]

Not related to the mapping party... but have just found a bug in MapThePaths 
which prevented the permalink feature working correctly, so the link in Jerry's 
message didn't take you to the right area.


I've fixed this now, so the link should take you to the area Jerry's talking 
about.


Apologies for the bug!


Nick


From: SK53 
Sent: 09 January 2019 21:17:18
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Lees Footpath mapping: results

Dear All,

I think we had a successful day last Saturday. I've added various snippets on 
the wiki page of what was surveyed and what has got into 
OSM
 so far:

If you look at Map the 
Paths,
 there is still a big patch of virgin territory to the immediate W of the area 
we focused on this time. I think I'm right is saying that this is the largest 
patch of unmapped footpaths near the big cities of the East Midlands.

I may suggest another day perhaps in March. There is a pub in Long Lane which 
is a bit closer as a meeting point, and maybe The Ostrich is still open too. A 
couple of people asked about public transport, but I'm afraid the area has next 
to no bus service which is probably one reason it hasn't been explored by 
OSMers. However, lifts can be arranged from Derby station (and possibly others) 
from one of the regular participants.

Regards,

Jerry
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Guildford Blackwell Farm redevelopment

[Nick Whitelegg]

Not been in Guildford area for a while but I do note that there is a Blackwell 
Farm railway station showing. AFAIK no new railway stations have been built on 
this route (Guildford-Reading line).


Wikipedia (not necessarily accurate) suggests it's merely a proposal at this 
stage.


I do have to say that this does look like an odd area for a big development, as 
it's on the north side of the Hogs Back which I always took to be an area 
protected from development (as wiki says).



Nick



From: Dave F 
Sent: 20 November 2018 18:49:53
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Guildford Blackwell Farm redevelopment

Hi

Is their anyone in the Guildford  area who can verify these edits by a
new user please?
They look like a part of the town's planned expansion, but I'm assuming
Adam got a bit ahead of himself. He's also overlapped roads onto the
railway. I've put in a changeset message to him.

http://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#63800817

Cheers
DaveF

___
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] Fwd: Open MasterMap progress since Policy Announcement

[Nick Whitelegg]

Interesting. "Detailed path network" in particular looks interesting, is this 
rights of way or physical paths on the ground I wonder?


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 12 October 2018 19:35:16
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Open MasterMap progress since Policy Announcement

Hi all,

Recap: The Ordnance Survey are working with the new Geospatial Commission on 
opening up access to more of their data.

Today this email landed in OSM UK's inbox (you too can subscribe for updates). 
It is a tad confusing because there are releasing things under two different 
routes (free up to a threshold, and fully free under OGL open data licence). 
This is explained on their website [1] but hidden under a FAQ. Here is the text:


OS MasterMap will be made available for free, up to a threshold, through an 
API. This will include:

  *   OS MasterMap Topography Layers, including building heights and functional 
sites
  *   OS MasterMap Greenspace Layer
  *   OS MasterMap Highways Network
  *   OS MasterMap Water Network Layer
  *   OS Detailed Path Network

In addition, key parts of Ordnance Survey's highly detailed OS MasterMap are 
being made completely open under Open Government Licence (OGL). This includes:

  *   Property extents derived from OS MasterMap Topography Layer
  *   Spatial identifiers:
 *   OS MasterMap Topography Layer TOIDs (Topographic Object Identifiers) 
will be incorporated into the features in OS Open Map-Local.
 *   Over the next 12 months the Geospatial Commission will work with 
GeoPlace, LGA, the Improvement Service (on behalf of Scottish Local 
Government), and OS to investigate how best to open up the key identifiers UPRN 
and USRN, together with their respective geometries, for the whole of Great 
Britain under OGL terms. Due to the importance of these identifiers this will 
need to be done in a such a way that protects the integrity and authority of 
these identifiers. A way to give both businesses and public sector 
organisations the confidence to continue to rely on these within their own 
products and services, without restricting their ability to use and benefit 
from them.

UPRN = Unique Property Reference Number
USRN = Unique street reference number

Clearly we feel that "free and without restriction" is not compatible with free 
open data and that they should be going further with their OGL release. This is 
something we will be feeding back. I encourage you to do the same if time 
and/or business interest allows.

They also link to the Geospatial Commission consultation, something that we are 
well into writing an answer. You can continue to feed back via OSM UK, or you 
can submit your own response.

[1] 
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/open-mastermap.html

Thanks,
Rob

 Original Message 

Subject:Open MasterMap progress since Policy Announcement
Date:   2018-10-12 15:04
From:   "ordnancesur...@connect.os.uk" 
mailto:ordnancesur...@connect.os.uk>>





An update on Open MasterMap Open MasterMap progress since Policy announcement 
Following the Open MasterMap Policy announcement in June by Cabinet Office, 
Ordnance Survey set up the Open MasterMap Implementation Programme (OMMIP) to 
successfully deliver the elements of the announcement that
[https://cdn.uploadlibrary.com/OSPricingandLicensing/Os-Logo-New-background.jpg]








An update on Open MasterMap

Open MasterMap progress since Policy announcement






Following the Open MasterMap Policy announcement in June by Cabinet Office, 
Ordnance Survey set up the Open MasterMap Implementation Programme (OMMIP) to 
successfully deliver the elements of the announcement 

 that OS is responsible for. We have continued to work closely with the 
Geospatial 
Commission,
 an expert committee within the Cabinet Office, on delivery plans, and we are 
now in a position where we can start to share more of the proposed Outputs for 
your information and feedback.



Details of the proposed 'Utility' APIs and a summary of the proposed delivery 
plan can be found on our website 
>



We believe that the APIs we're proposing will ensure that users have better 
access to our world class mapping and geospatial data, but we'd welcome your 
feedback on these. We have also shared the summary of our proposed delivery 
plan in order to demonstrate several things:

  1.  Our approach to delivery will be collaborative in nature, i.e. co-design 
principles of user testing will influence Outputs
  2.  Outputs will be delivered throughout the programme, rather than a 
'big-bang'.

We're currently working with the Geospatial Commission to agree the more 
detailed delivery 

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths: lagginess in Firefox 62.0 - use Chrome for now

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,


Apologies for this: I've noticed that MapThePaths has become very laggy in 
Firefox 62.0, while in 60 and 61 it worked fine unless there was a large amount 
of data. Unsure of the reason but I've asked on dev in case the Leaflet 
developers can give some guidance.


In the meantime, I would recommend you use Chrome, which does not appear to 
have a problem.


Thanks,

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths app

[Nick Whitelegg]

... oops, forgot to mention the app is Android only, not iOS - and only 
supports API 23+ (Marshmallow upwards).


There is now a rough guide, based on yesterday's email, available on the 
MapThePaths site. Apologies for the lack of detail on this: I am going away and 
have little time at the moment!


Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 28 August 2018 18:24:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths app



Hi,


A couple of updates on MapThePaths 
(www.mapthepaths.org.uk<http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk>).


First of all, there will be no further updates of the data until the 2nd week 
in September. (Normally I update the data once a week, it was last done 
yesterday)


Secondly, there is now an (experimental, rough round the edges and not 
comprehensively tested) app available.

The app will show OSM data and council ROWs in the current location, in the 
same way as the website does. This is under "View" mode. You have

to download the data explicitly using the menu.


Create/Edit mode allows you to live edit the designation of ways and (with 
caveats - see below) create new data.

Again, you must explicitly download live OSM data via the menu system. You can 
then long-press an OSM way to update the designation tag, a useful way of 
adding or altering designations in the field.


There is also a _very_ experimental feature to auto convert a GPS trace to OSM 
ways in Create/Edit mode.

If you are walking along an unmapped path, you can perform a survey.  Select 
its designation (public footpath, public bridleway etc) and type (grass path, 
dirt path, dirt track) etc and record your route (using the red dot icon under 
'Create/Edit' mode).


When you have finished recording, you can press stop (the black square icon) 
and upload (the cloud icon) and your GPS trace will be simplified and 
autoconverted into OSM ways (with appropriate designation, highway and surface 
tags added), which will be hopefully (see below) auto-joined to the existing 
OSM highway network.


The eventual aim of this feature is to make it easy for OSM newcomers to survey 
paths without having to worry about the details of tagging. It has not yet 
achieved this aim but it does allow established mappers to quickly survey paths 
in the field and upload them.


IT IS CURRENTLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (and the app tells you this) to then use 
JOSM or a similar editor to refine the auto-created ways as they may suffer 
from artefacts due to poor GPS signal, and the app is still a little buggy at 
handling the terminal nodes. Nonetheless it is arguably a useful way of getting 
the designation and highway type recorded in the field without having to note 
them down.


Note that you have to grant location and storage permissions via the device's 
settings; this isn't yet fully done in-app.


It can be downloaded via the link at http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/; 
<http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk> full URL: 
http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/downloads/mapthepaths.apk.


It's not quite ready for full release just yet; nonetheless I have made an 
early version available as people might find the "view" mode in particular 
useful if they are out in

the field looking for paths to map during the current path mapping quarterly 
project.


Source repository https://gitlab.com/nickw1/mapthepaths-android.


Nick


<http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk//>



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths app

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,


A couple of updates on MapThePaths 
(www.mapthepaths.org.uk).


First of all, there will be no further updates of the data until the 2nd week 
in September. (Normally I update the data once a week, it was last done 
yesterday)


Secondly, there is now an (experimental, rough round the edges and not 
comprehensively tested) app available.

The app will show OSM data and council ROWs in the current location, in the 
same way as the website does. This is under "View" mode. You have

to download the data explicitly using the menu.


Create/Edit mode allows you to live edit the designation of ways and (with 
caveats - see below) create new data.

Again, you must explicitly download live OSM data via the menu system. You can 
then long-press an OSM way to update the designation tag, a useful way of 
adding or altering designations in the field.


There is also a _very_ experimental feature to auto convert a GPS trace to OSM 
ways in Create/Edit mode.

If you are walking along an unmapped path, you can perform a survey.  Select 
its designation (public footpath, public bridleway etc) and type (grass path, 
dirt path, dirt track) etc and record your route (using the red dot icon under 
'Create/Edit' mode).


When you have finished recording, you can press stop (the black square icon) 
and upload (the cloud icon) and your GPS trace will be simplified and 
autoconverted into OSM ways (with appropriate designation, highway and surface 
tags added), which will be hopefully (see below) auto-joined to the existing 
OSM highway network.


The eventual aim of this feature is to make it easy for OSM newcomers to survey 
paths without having to worry about the details of tagging. It has not yet 
achieved this aim but it does allow established mappers to quickly survey paths 
in the field and upload them.


IT IS CURRENTLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (and the app tells you this) to then use 
JOSM or a similar editor to refine the auto-created ways as they may suffer 
from artefacts due to poor GPS signal, and the app is still a little buggy at 
handling the terminal nodes. Nonetheless it is arguably a useful way of getting 
the designation and highway type recorded in the field without having to note 
them down.


Note that you have to grant location and storage permissions via the device's 
settings; this isn't yet fully done in-app.


It can be downloaded via the link at http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/; 
 full URL: 
http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/downloads/mapthepaths.apk.


It's not quite ready for full release just yet; nonetheless I have made an 
early version available as people might find the "view" mode in particular 
useful if they are out in

the field looking for paths to map during the current path mapping quarterly 
project.


Source repository https://gitlab.com/nickw1/mapthepaths-android.


Nick






___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Nick Whitelegg]

... even though technically, it was not Greater Manchester when I was born, it 
was in my earliest memories.


Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 08 August 2018 17:03
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org; co...@thespillers.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database


I think these things are at least partly a product of what generation you 
belong to.

I'm of the generation that was too young to remember pre-1974 but was well into 
my twenties by the next reorganisation. Consequently I think of Manchester as 
being in Greater Manchester (and that I was both born in and lived the first 5 
years or so of my life in Greater Manchester) and Bournemouth as being in 
Dorset, and not Hampshire.

But, on the other hand, I think of Southampton, where I live now, as firmly in 
Hampshire even though technically it's not part of HCC.

The only exceptions are that I think of Rutland as Rutland and Herefordshire 
and Worcestershire as their own counties - and not combined.

Basically, the current "ceremonial counties" correspond very closely to what 
county I think of something as being in!

Nick



From: Colin Spiller 
Sent: 08 August 2018 16:29:15
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Here in Yorkshire, people are very possessive (if that's the right
word!) about the old county boundary (i.e. pre 1974). Many people are
very aware of the problem (as they see it) that certain parts of
Yorkshire have been transferred to (or 'stolen by') Lancashire, or other
counties. They still think of the 3 Ridings as current in some cases.

And Liverpool and Manchester are still parts of Lancashire according to
some!

Colin


On 08/08/18 10:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
> On 07/08/2018 20:48, Dave F wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with
>> boundary=historic through out the UK:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)
>>
>> Changeset discussion:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203
>>
>>  From the historic wiki page
>> "historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"
>>
>> Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we
>> have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial?
>> Then what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The
>> database would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if
>> zoomed out too far).
>
> I agree that "historic" boundaries don't belong in OSM. They have
> value for historic researchers, but, as you say, that's not what OSM
> is about.
>
> It's also flat out incorrect to say that historic boundaries are
> "immutable". Although it is true that there were massive changes in
> the 1970s and a lot more since then, the idea that the historic (or
> "traditional") counties were stable throughout history is just
> myth-making. A lot of what people think of as the historic county
> boundaries are, in fact, a Victorian creation. And even they didn't
> leave them alone!
>
> I do think, though, that there's a case for including the current
> ceremonial and preserved county boundaries. These have a defined and
> relevant meaning here and now, even if it's a less common one than
> administrative boundaries such as counties, districts and parishes.
> Maybe the people adding historic boundaries to OSM could be nudged in
> that direction instead.
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

--
Colin Spiller
co...@thespillers.org.uk


___
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] MapThePaths update - GB1900 footpath locations

[Nick Whitelegg]

A possible revised approach (which would be relatively easily implementable) 
could be to allow users to create the way in-app by tapping along their GPX 
trace - this way the user can disregard any obvious anomalies. The tapped 
points could then be autoconverted to OSM ways and added to existing ways using 
much the same code as the current approach.


The main goal of the app is to produce something (hopefully) easy to use which 
allows users to survey and to add to OSM in one place, and to hide the details 
of tagging by allowing a user to select ROW designation (footpath, bridleway 
etc) and route type (grass path, dirt path, track etc) which are converted 
automatically to appropriate highway, designation and surface tags.

The actual GPX traces (or specifically, the individual  segments) are 
tagged using OSM tags as the user does the survey.


Nick



From: Dave F 
Sent: 27 July 2018 16:15:26
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update - GB1900 footpath locations

Hi

Can I please urge caution if using this feature. GPS traces are rarely accurate 
enough in their raw state to be included directly. Dense woods, deep valleys & 
solar winds etc will all introduce errors into the traces & walkers will often 
wander 'off-piste' when crossing fields. Using an editor allows comparisons 
with existing traces.

>From experience of my own & other user's traces, you can often end up spending 
>more time & effort editing the uploaded way than tracing over it.

Cheers
DaveF

On 26/07/2018 17:21, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


Hello everyone,


Also coming soon - a MapThePaths app which will allow users to survey footpaths 
via GPS and automatically add them to OSM without the need for a separate 
editor. An initial version of this is almost ready but just needs a bit of 
debugging and testing.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update - GB1900 footpath locations

[Nick Whitelegg]

 oops forgot the url: www.mapthepaths.org.uk<http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk>.


Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 26 July 2018 17:21:49
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: humphrey.south...@port.ac.uk; Chris Fleet
Subject: MapThePaths update - GB1900 footpath locations



Hello everyone,


Just a quick update on MapThePaths - I've imported the GB1900 footpath 
locations into my database and show them on the map as markers (the layer can 
be turned on and off).


Also coming soon - a MapThePaths app which will allow users to survey footpaths 
via GPS and automatically add them to OSM without the need for a separate 
editor. An initial version of this is almost ready but just needs a bit of 
debugging and testing.


Nick




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths update - GB1900 footpath locations

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,


Just a quick update on MapThePaths - I've imported the GB1900 footpath 
locations into my database and show them on the map as markers (the layer can 
be turned on and off).


Also coming soon - a MapThePaths app which will allow users to survey footpaths 
via GPS and automatically add them to OSM without the need for a separate 
editor. An initial version of this is almost ready but just needs a bit of 
debugging and testing.


Nick




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapthePaths & Lancashire

[Nick Whitelegg]

.. to follow up on this and checking Robert Whittaker's email, it does appear 
that unfortunately the parish name is not in a consistent place in the data.


As he says in his email, Robert is however planning to make available the 
formats used by each council as a data file, so once this is done I'll present 
the data in a more meaningful format.


Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 14 July 2018 14:15:41
To: Tony Shield; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapthePaths & Lancashire



Hello Tony,


Glad you like MapThePaths!


The parish names are taken verbatim from Barry's data. I'll look at some of 
Barry's files to see if I can pull out a field which is consistently the actual 
parish name; the one I use is the one that translates to the parish in several 
councils in this area, e.g. Hampshire, Surrey and West Sussex, though I note 
that Wiltshire also uses an abbreviation e.g. WHIT for Whiteparish.


Nick



From: Tony Shield 
Sent: 11 July 2018 18:38:02
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] MapthePaths & Lancashire

Hi

Love MapthePaths; in Lancashire the path is presented as "Public
footpath, ref 9-8 18", I have manually translated this to the prow_ref
of "Charnock Richard FP 18". I have performed this conversion by looking
at Barry Cornelius's data file and extracting District and Parish ID's
and matched them to the 9-8 element of the ID. I have a spreadsheet of
the DIstrict and Parish combinations - is there somewhere I can place it
to help others? Alternatively could MapthePaths be modified to use the
parish name instead of the District/Parish ID numbers.

I noted there are 231 parishes and unparished towns, some with only one
footpath. Some of the parish names are mis-spelt eg BYRNING-WITH-WARTON
should be Bryning . . .


Regards

Tony Shield


___
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] MapthePaths & Lancashire

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Tony,


Glad you like MapThePaths!


The parish names are taken verbatim from Barry's data. I'll look at some of 
Barry's files to see if I can pull out a field which is consistently the actual 
parish name; the one I use is the one that translates to the parish in several 
councils in this area, e.g. Hampshire, Surrey and West Sussex, though I note 
that Wiltshire also uses an abbreviation e.g. WHIT for Whiteparish.


Nick



From: Tony Shield 
Sent: 11 July 2018 18:38:02
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] MapthePaths & Lancashire

Hi

Love MapthePaths; in Lancashire the path is presented as "Public
footpath, ref 9-8 18", I have manually translated this to the prow_ref
of "Charnock Richard FP 18". I have performed this conversion by looking
at Barry Cornelius's data file and extracting District and Parish ID's
and matched them to the 9-8 element of the ID. I have a spreadsheet of
the DIstrict and Parish combinations - is there somewhere I can place it
to help others? Alternatively could MapthePaths be modified to use the
parish name instead of the District/Parish ID numbers.

I noted there are 231 parishes and unparished towns, some with only one
footpath. Some of the parish names are mis-spelt eg BYRNING-WITH-WARTON
should be Bryning . . .


Regards

Tony Shield


___
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] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Rob,


OK - that's great - thanks for that.


One or two minor updates today, previously it was having difficulty with very 
short, 2-node ways (e.g. bridges) but that's now fixed.


I'm also hoping to add in the parish boundaries, hopefully tomorrow.


Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 11 July 2018 23:25:42
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: andrewdbl...@googlemail.com; Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

And as promised, I tested it today and can confirm that it is working for me 
now :-)

P.s. View the changesets with a MapThePaths comment here 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-changesets?comment=MapThePaths#7/52.626/-1.566

Rob


On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 11:54, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hi, the Chrome issue now seems to be fixed.

Technical info if you're interested: the fetch() API for sending AJAX requests 
does not send the session cookie by default in Chrome unless the 'credentials' 
option is set to 'include'.


See:


https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/03/introduction-to-fetch

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WindowOrWorkerGlobalScope/fetch#Parameters>

If you want to try editing with Chrome, please use Ctrl+F5 to force a reload of 
the cache.


Nick

____
From: Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>>
Sent: 09 July 2018 09:03:08
To: Andrew Black
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref



OK, sorry.. there appears to be an issue with Chrome. Not got time to 
investigate right now, but will reply when I've found the problem.


Just tested, I can edit in Firefox but getting the error in Chrome.


Nick



From: Andrew Black 
mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>>
Sent: 08 July 2018 21:09:29
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

I am getting "your editing session has timed out, please log in again." despite 
having logged in less than a minute earlier.
Chrome if it is relevant

Thanks

On 7 July 2018 at 19:45, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


401 would mean you're not logged in.. when you login it stores your OAuth token 
in a session, which expires after a certain time (15 minutes I think, need to 
check the configuration).


I'll modify the code when I have a moment so that if it gives a 401 it comes up 
with a more friendly message to tell the user they need to log back in.


I have changed the code slightly to reduce the risk of caching old versions of 
the JavsScript.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 07 July 2018 18:20:15

To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Still having issues.

I was getting the correct message box but now I just get "OpenStreetMap 
returned an error: code 401".

BTW: I am adding designation but no prow_ref. For now I will continue with JOSM.

Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 17:38, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


To add to Martin's comment, try using Ctrl+F5 on MapThePaths itself as you 
might be using a cached old version of the scripts.


When you add a designation and/or prow_ref, an alert box reading 'Way NNN 
successfully updated in OSM' should appear. Does this appear?


The way you mentioned doesn't seem to have any edits even after refreshing.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 07 July 2018 12:37:26
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

In that case it is not working for me. Username is RobJN (with capitalisation). 
Tried to edit a few ways including this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/454674177

Anyone else having success? problems?

Thanks,
Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 11:10, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


Should be immediate: for example I've added a number of prow_ref tags in just 
the last few minutes. See:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60485630


One update today BTW - formerly each edit had a separate changeset, which 
wasn't ideal. Now multiple edits in one session are grouped into a single 
changeset.


Let me know if you're still having problems; let me know what edits you're 
trying to do and I'll try and reproduce them.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 06 July 2018 23:42:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi, the Chrome issue now seems to be fixed.

Technical info if you're interested: the fetch() API for sending AJAX requests 
does not send the session cookie by default in Chrome unless the 'credentials' 
option is set to 'include'.


See:


https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/03/introduction-to-fetch

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WindowOrWorkerGlobalScope/fetch#Parameters>

If you want to try editing with Chrome, please use Ctrl+F5 to force a reload of 
the cache.


Nick


From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 09 July 2018 09:03:08
To: Andrew Black
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref



OK, sorry.. there appears to be an issue with Chrome. Not got time to 
investigate right now, but will reply when I've found the problem.


Just tested, I can edit in Firefox but getting the error in Chrome.


Nick



From: Andrew Black 
Sent: 08 July 2018 21:09:29
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

I am getting "your editing session has timed out, please log in again." despite 
having logged in less than a minute earlier.
Chrome if it is relevant

Thanks

On 7 July 2018 at 19:45, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


401 would mean you're not logged in.. when you login it stores your OAuth token 
in a session, which expires after a certain time (15 minutes I think, need to 
check the configuration).


I'll modify the code when I have a moment so that if it gives a 401 it comes up 
with a more friendly message to tell the user they need to log back in.


I have changed the code slightly to reduce the risk of caching old versions of 
the JavsScript.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 07 July 2018 18:20:15

To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Still having issues.

I was getting the correct message box but now I just get "OpenStreetMap 
returned an error: code 401".

BTW: I am adding designation but no prow_ref. For now I will continue with JOSM.

Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 17:38, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


To add to Martin's comment, try using Ctrl+F5 on MapThePaths itself as you 
might be using a cached old version of the scripts.


When you add a designation and/or prow_ref, an alert box reading 'Way NNN 
successfully updated in OSM' should appear. Does this appear?


The way you mentioned doesn't seem to have any edits even after refreshing.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 07 July 2018 12:37:26
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

In that case it is not working for me. Username is RobJN (with capitalisation). 
Tried to edit a few ways including this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/454674177

Anyone else having success? problems?

Thanks,
Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 11:10, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


Should be immediate: for example I've added a number of prow_ref tags in just 
the last few minutes. See:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60485630


One update today BTW - formerly each edit had a separate changeset, which 
wasn't ideal. Now multiple edits in one session are grouped into a single 
changeset.


Let me know if you're still having problems; let me know what edits you're 
trying to do and I'll try and reproduce them.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 06 July 2018 23:42:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Hi Nick,

How long does it take for the edits to go through to OSM? I expected it to be 
live but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Thanks,
Rob

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Nick Whitelegg]

OK, sorry.. there appears to be an issue with Chrome. Not got time to 
investigate right now, but will reply when I've found the problem.


Just tested, I can edit in Firefox but getting the error in Chrome.


Nick



From: Andrew Black 
Sent: 08 July 2018 21:09:29
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

I am getting "your editing session has timed out, please log in again." despite 
having logged in less than a minute earlier.
Chrome if it is relevant

Thanks

On 7 July 2018 at 19:45, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


401 would mean you're not logged in.. when you login it stores your OAuth token 
in a session, which expires after a certain time (15 minutes I think, need to 
check the configuration).


I'll modify the code when I have a moment so that if it gives a 401 it comes up 
with a more friendly message to tell the user they need to log back in.


I have changed the code slightly to reduce the risk of caching old versions of 
the JavsScript.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 07 July 2018 18:20:15

To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Still having issues.

I was getting the correct message box but now I just get "OpenStreetMap 
returned an error: code 401".

BTW: I am adding designation but no prow_ref. For now I will continue with JOSM.

Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 17:38, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


To add to Martin's comment, try using Ctrl+F5 on MapThePaths itself as you 
might be using a cached old version of the scripts.


When you add a designation and/or prow_ref, an alert box reading 'Way NNN 
successfully updated in OSM' should appear. Does this appear?


The way you mentioned doesn't seem to have any edits even after refreshing.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 07 July 2018 12:37:26
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

In that case it is not working for me. Username is RobJN (with capitalisation). 
Tried to edit a few ways including this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/454674177

Anyone else having success? problems?

Thanks,
Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 11:10, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


Should be immediate: for example I've added a number of prow_ref tags in just 
the last few minutes. See:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60485630


One update today BTW - formerly each edit had a separate changeset, which 
wasn't ideal. Now multiple edits in one session are grouped into a single 
changeset.


Let me know if you're still having problems; let me know what edits you're 
trying to do and I'll try and reproduce them.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 06 July 2018 23:42:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Hi Nick,

How long does it take for the edits to go through to OSM? I expected it to be 
live but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Thanks,
Rob

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Nick Whitelegg]

401 would mean you're not logged in.. when you login it stores your OAuth token 
in a session, which expires after a certain time (15 minutes I think, need to 
check the configuration).


I'll modify the code when I have a moment so that if it gives a 401 it comes up 
with a more friendly message to tell the user they need to log back in.


I have changed the code slightly to reduce the risk of caching old versions of 
the JavsScript.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 07 July 2018 18:20:15
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Still having issues.

I was getting the correct message box but now I just get "OpenStreetMap 
returned an error: code 401".

BTW: I am adding designation but no prow_ref. For now I will continue with JOSM.

Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 17:38, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


To add to Martin's comment, try using Ctrl+F5 on MapThePaths itself as you 
might be using a cached old version of the scripts.


When you add a designation and/or prow_ref, an alert box reading 'Way NNN 
successfully updated in OSM' should appear. Does this appear?


The way you mentioned doesn't seem to have any edits even after refreshing.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 07 July 2018 12:37:26
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

In that case it is not working for me. Username is RobJN (with capitalisation). 
Tried to edit a few ways including this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/454674177

Anyone else having success? problems?

Thanks,
Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 11:10, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


Should be immediate: for example I've added a number of prow_ref tags in just 
the last few minutes. See:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60485630


One update today BTW - formerly each edit had a separate changeset, which 
wasn't ideal. Now multiple edits in one session are grouped into a single 
changeset.


Let me know if you're still having problems; let me know what edits you're 
trying to do and I'll try and reproduce them.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 06 July 2018 23:42:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Hi Nick,

How long does it take for the edits to go through to OSM? I expected it to be 
live but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Thanks,
Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Rob,


To add to Martin's comment, try using Ctrl+F5 on MapThePaths itself as you 
might be using a cached old version of the scripts.


When you add a designation and/or prow_ref, an alert box reading 'Way NNN 
successfully updated in OSM' should appear. Does this appear?


The way you mentioned doesn't seem to have any edits even after refreshing.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 07 July 2018 12:37:26
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

In that case it is not working for me. Username is RobJN (with capitalisation). 
Tried to edit a few ways including this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/454674177

Anyone else having success? problems?

Thanks,
Rob


On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 11:10, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hello Rob,


Should be immediate: for example I've added a number of prow_ref tags in just 
the last few minutes. See:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60485630


One update today BTW - formerly each edit had a separate changeset, which 
wasn't ideal. Now multiple edits in one session are grouped into a single 
changeset.


Let me know if you're still having problems; let me know what edits you're 
trying to do and I'll try and reproduce them.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 06 July 2018 23:42:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Hi Nick,

How long does it take for the edits to go through to OSM? I expected it to be 
live but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Thanks,
Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Rob,


Should be immediate: for example I've added a number of prow_ref tags in just 
the last few minutes. See:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60485630


One update today BTW - formerly each edit had a separate changeset, which 
wasn't ideal. Now multiple edits in one session are grouped into a single 
changeset.


Let me know if you're still having problems; let me know what edits you're 
trying to do and I'll try and reproduce them.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 06 July 2018 23:42:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

Hi Nick,

How long does it take for the edits to go through to OSM? I expected it to be 
live but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Thanks,
Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,


Another update to MapThePaths - you can now perform live OSM edits of the 
designation and prow_ref tags of ways.


You need to login with your OSM account, select 'Edit' and then zoom in to the 
highest level.

The live OSM data is overlaid on the council data when in live edit mode - 
apologies if this is a bit unclear, still trying to figure out a way to nicely 
show both layers.


Note that if you are not in an OGL council area, it will not allow you to do 
any editing.


This is worked out by calculating what council paths are within the bounding 
box of the OSM way. If there is at least one OGL council path and zero non-OGL 
paths, you're allowed to edit it.


Reminder of URL - www.mapthepaths.org.uk/



Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

[Nick Whitelegg]

OK. Will modify MapThePaths to show the parish ID as well as the actual 
reference number.


Nick



From: Roger Calvert 
Sent: 02 July 2018 19:20:20
To: Nick Whitelegg; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

Thanks, Nick. In fact Barry shows all 6 figures, but with a gap between the 
parish prefix and the PROW reference number.

Regards,

Roger

On 02/07/2018 18:24, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


Hello Roger,


Yes, I think I've noticed the 6-figure PROW IDs when I've been in the Lake 
District.

The IDs I use are those that Barry Cornelius (rowmaps) uses, as my data is 
taken from his site. Not sure if he has access to the full IDs, but it's worth 
contacting him as he would probably know - his site is rowmaps.com.


Nick


From: Roger Calvert <mailto:jrogercalv...@gmail.com>
Sent: 02 July 2018 11:17:47
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my area from 
that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal.

The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by the 
Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors, they 
have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil Parish in 
which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park under 
contract with Cumbria County Council.)

For example, OSM way 2186193630 coincides with footpath reference 049 in Lowick 
parish, but is numbered 551049 on the LDNPA map. All paths in Lowick are 
prefixed 551. Where this path crosses into the next parish (Blawith and 
Subberthwaite) it becomes ref 016 on Map The Paths, but is 505016 on the LDNPA 
map. All paths in this parish are prefixed 505.

The 3 figure references are certainly re-used in different parishes. For 
example, there is a bridleway (OSM 54189587)  also with the reference 016 
(539016) less than 2 km away in the adjoining Kirkby Ireleth parish (it becomes 
505023 where it crosses into Blawith and Subberthwaite, and I have spotted 
another 023 a few miles away in adjoining Colton parish), so that confusion is 
certainly possible.

I do not know whether these parish prefixes are available under a suitable 
license, but if they are, I think they would be a useful addition to the Map 
The Paths references.

Regards,

Rogerc
--


Roger Calvert


--


Roger Calvert

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Roger,


Yes, I think I've noticed the 6-figure PROW IDs when I've been in the Lake 
District.

The IDs I use are those that Barry Cornelius (rowmaps) uses, as my data is 
taken from his site. Not sure if he has access to the full IDs, but it's worth 
contacting him as he would probably know - his site is rowmaps.com.


Nick


From: Roger Calvert 
Sent: 02 July 2018 11:17:47
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my area from 
that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal.

The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by the 
Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors, they 
have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil Parish in 
which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park under 
contract with Cumbria County Council.)

For example, OSM way 2186193630 coincides with footpath reference 049 in Lowick 
parish, but is numbered 551049 on the LDNPA map. All paths in Lowick are 
prefixed 551. Where this path crosses into the next parish (Blawith and 
Subberthwaite) it becomes ref 016 on Map The Paths, but is 505016 on the LDNPA 
map. All paths in this parish are prefixed 505.

The 3 figure references are certainly re-used in different parishes. For 
example, there is a bridleway (OSM 54189587)  also with the reference 016 
(539016) less than 2 km away in the adjoining Kirkby Ireleth parish (it becomes 
505023 where it crosses into Blawith and Subberthwaite, and I have spotted 
another 023 a few miles away in adjoining Colton parish), so that confusion is 
certainly possible.

I do not know whether these parish prefixes are available under a suitable 
license, but if they are, I think they would be a useful addition to the Map 
The Paths references.

Regards,

Rogerc
--


Roger Calvert

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Geofabrik request: Tyne and Wear

[Nick Whitelegg]

I thought it was the former county of Cleveland, existent between the early 70s 
and mid 90s or so (which appears to be non-ceremonial) that was split between 
Durham and North Yorks; with Tyne and Wear split across the historic 
(pre-1970ish) borders of the counties of Northumberland and Durham.


Nick



From: Colin Smale 
Sent: 22 June 2018 19:57:13
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org; Frederik Ramm; Andy Robinson; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Geofabrik request: Tyne and Wear

If the overlap is around Stockton on Tees, the bit of north Yorkshire is 
correct. The ceremonial county of Tyne and Wear is split across County Durham 
and North Yorks. This is a unique situation... As the original request was 
based on the ceremonial County, it would be better to include this area.

On 22 June 2018 18:42:54 BST, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

Afraid I cannot reply in the language, but I've added Durham and Tyne
and Wear now. At the same time I've shaved a little bit off North
Yorkshire which for reasons I cannot fathom had overlapped with Durham a
little bit. Let me know if anything is wrong!

Bye
Frederik

On 06/22/2018 03:47 PM, Andy Robinson wrote:
 Or in Gordie….



 Cud ah myek a request fo' an additional region within england on
 geofabrik? it's tyne an' weor, a formor metropolitan county coverin
 Newcassel an' the surroundin area - similar in status tuh formor
 metropolitan counties iv syeuth an' west yorkshire, greator manchestor
 an' merseyside.



 J



 *From:*Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk]
 *Sent:* 21 June 2018 15:27
 *To:* Frederik Ramm
 *Cc:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Geofabrik request: Tyne and Wear





 Hello Frederik,



 Could I make a request for an additional region within England on geofabrik?



 It's Tyne and Wear, a former metropolitan county covering Newcastle and
 the surrounding area - similar in status to former metropolitan counties
 of South  and West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.


 Thanks,

 Nick





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Geofabrik request: Tyne and Wear

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Frederik,


OK thanks for that. It looks right, with the caveat that being non-local I 
don't know exactly where the borders are. Sure it's fine though.


Thanks,

Nick


From: Frederik Ramm 
Sent: 22 June 2018 18:42:54
To: Andy Robinson; Nick Whitelegg
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Geofabrik request: Tyne and Wear

Afraid I cannot reply in the language, but I've added Durham and Tyne
and Wear now. At the same time I've shaved a little bit off North
Yorkshire which for reasons I cannot fathom had overlapped with Durham a
little bit. Let me know if anything is wrong!

Bye
Frederik

On 06/22/2018 03:47 PM, Andy Robinson wrote:
> Or in Gordie….
>
>
>
> Cud ah myek a request fo' an additional region within england on
> geofabrik? it's tyne an' weor, a formor metropolitan county coverin
> Newcassel an' the surroundin area - similar in status tuh formor
> metropolitan counties iv syeuth an' west yorkshire, greator manchestor
> an' merseyside.
>
>
>
> J
>
>
>
> *From:*Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* 21 June 2018 15:27
> *To:* Frederik Ramm
> *Cc:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Geofabrik request: Tyne and Wear
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Frederik,
>
>
>
> Could I make a request for an additional region within England on geofabrik?
>
>
>
> It's Tyne and Wear, a former metropolitan county covering Newcastle and
> the surrounding area - similar in status to former metropolitan counties
> of South  and West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

[Nick Whitelegg]

... sorry, forgot URL: www.mapthepaths.org.uk<http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk>.


Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 21 June 2018 16:28:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: MapThePaths - updates



Hello everyone,


A few updates on MapThePaths since the initial announcement, mostly from 
requests:


- Multiple zoom levels (4 in total) now implemented.


- Metropolitan-area councils in the north of England included: OSM footpaths 
from Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and South and West Yorkshire have now been 
added, and all council data available on rowmaps for these areas is also now 
present.


Note that some councils may still be missing as I don't think all of them are 
on rowmaps just yet. Also note that Tyne and Wear OSM data is not present yet 
as there isn't yet a Geofabrik extract; and Greater London and the West 
Midlands are still excluded due to the sheer amount of data in those areas.


- Permalink now added.


I haven't yet added the historical "FP" points but that's next on the list.


Nick




Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | JM506 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,


A few updates on MapThePaths since the initial announcement, mostly from 
requests:


- Multiple zoom levels (4 in total) now implemented.


- Metropolitan-area councils in the north of England included: OSM footpaths 
from Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and South and West Yorkshire have now been 
added, and all council data available on rowmaps for these areas is also now 
present.


Note that some councils may still be missing as I don't think all of them are 
on rowmaps just yet. Also note that Tyne and Wear OSM data is not present yet 
as there isn't yet a Geofabrik extract; and Greater London and the West 
Midlands are still excluded due to the sheer amount of data in those areas.


- Permalink now added.


I haven't yet added the historical "FP" points but that's next on the list.


Nick




Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | JM506 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Geofabrik request: Tyne and Wear

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Frederik,


Could I make a request for an additional region within England on geofabrik?


It's Tyne and Wear, a former metropolitan county covering Newcastle and the 
surrounding area - similar in status to former metropolitan counties of South  
and West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

Thanks,

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath mapping

[Nick Whitelegg]

Sorry, quick update:


I inadvertently introduced a bug yesterday afternoon when adding copyright info 
to the data produced by the API. This is now corrected. Apologies for the 
downtime.


Nick


From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 10 June 2018 14:05:36
To: Rob Nickerson; Talk-GB; Adam Snape
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath 
mapping



Hello Rob and Adam,


Glad you find it useful!


To answer your points:


Firstly a higher zoom level should be easily possible - the tiles are only 
stored on the server at one zoom level (insufficient disc space to deal with 
more) but higher zoom level tiles could easily be dynamically generated on the 
server on demand with PHP.


I don't have a combined file of all the council data, though I think I could 
probably produce one if necessary. However I have a web API to retrieve council 
(and OSM) data via bounding box:


www.mapthepaths.org.uk/row.php?bbox=west,south,east,north=L<http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/row.php?bbox=west,south,east,north=L>


(where L is either osm or council)


Note that requesting a very large bounding box is likely to cause server 
problems  - this is untested.


I could add the 1900 data, yes.


I'll look into the excluded unitary authorities - yes I would have skipped over 
Bradford and Blackburn as they sounded very urban! Some UAs are not available 
on rowmaps - Conwy springs to mind.


In terms of the editing functionality (when implemented), I won't allow users 
to delete any existing tags. It will be more a case of a very simplistic 
interface allowing users to add designation and prow_ref tags where these are 
not present.


Rob - yes I saw that email. I will try and get along if I can, it would be 
great to get involved.


I'll post an update once I've implemented your suggestions.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 09 June 2018 14:46:44
To: Talk-GB; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath 
mapping

Hi Nick,

I like this. Spent some time last night adding designations to existing OSM 
paths using one of the OGL datasets.

A couple of questions:

  1.  Do you have a combined ROW dataset (bringing all the rowmaps files 
together)? If so could you host this somewhere.
  2.  Is it possible to allow one more zoom in on the map. For some very short 
ROWs it would be good to zoom in and have a closer look.
  3.  Could you add the GB1900 data as an additional source (the so called 2026 
missing paths)?

Finally, did you spot my email from Chris that I posted to talk-gb? There is a 
launch event in London early July if you can make it.

Best regards,
Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath mapping

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Rob and Adam,


Glad you find it useful!


To answer your points:


Firstly a higher zoom level should be easily possible - the tiles are only 
stored on the server at one zoom level (insufficient disc space to deal with 
more) but higher zoom level tiles could easily be dynamically generated on the 
server on demand with PHP.


I don't have a combined file of all the council data, though I think I could 
probably produce one if necessary. However I have a web API to retrieve council 
(and OSM) data via bounding box:


www.mapthepaths.org.uk/row.php?bbox=west,south,east,north=L<http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/row.php?bbox=west,south,east,north=L>


(where L is either osm or council)


Note that requesting a very large bounding box is likely to cause server 
problems  - this is untested.


I could add the 1900 data, yes.


I'll look into the excluded unitary authorities - yes I would have skipped over 
Bradford and Blackburn as they sounded very urban! Some UAs are not available 
on rowmaps - Conwy springs to mind.


In terms of the editing functionality (when implemented), I won't allow users 
to delete any existing tags. It will be more a case of a very simplistic 
interface allowing users to add designation and prow_ref tags where these are 
not present.


Rob - yes I saw that email. I will try and get along if I can, it would be 
great to get involved.


I'll post an update once I've implemented your suggestions.


Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 09 June 2018 14:46:44
To: Talk-GB; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath 
mapping

Hi Nick,

I like this. Spent some time last night adding designations to existing OSM 
paths using one of the OGL datasets.

A couple of questions:

  1.  Do you have a combined ROW dataset (bringing all the rowmaps files 
together)? If so could you host this somewhere.
  2.  Is it possible to allow one more zoom in on the map. For some very short 
ROWs it would be good to zoom in and have a closer look.
  3.  Could you add the GB1900 data as an additional source (the so called 2026 
missing paths)?

Finally, did you spot my email from Chris that I posted to talk-gb? There is a 
launch event in London early July if you can make it.

Best regards,
Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath mapping

[Nick Whitelegg]

Quick update: most of Wales now added.


Also I have made one or two changes to the JavaScript code so please do Ctrl-F5 
if you want to reload the site, otherwise the browser may use old code and it 
may not work.


Apologies for the top posting by the way, it's an unfortunate limitation of 
this email client.


Nick


From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 08 June 2018 15:04:15
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath mapping



Hello everyone,


Following on from the recent discussions regarding rights of way and the 
licensing of council data, I would like to announce that the initial - and very 
much prototype - version of 'MapThePaths' is now available.


http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/


This site aims to be a platform to help map, and correctly tag, rights of way 
(and other walkable paths) in England and Wales.


Currently it is a viewer only, it does not yet offer editing facilities, and 
covers rural areas of England only for now (former metropolitan counties and 
urban unitary authorities have been largely excluded to minimise demands on the 
server).  It shows council rights of way (thanks to Barry Cornelius and rowmaps 
for this) superimposed on OSM paths (ways where 
highway=footway,path,bridleway,track,steps,cycleway or service). Both council 
data and OSM data is coloured by designation. OSM paths with no designation are 
shown as grey dashed lines.


You can click on the council paths (which are wider, transparent lines) to get 
the licensing status (is the data OGL?) - thanks to Robert Whittaker for this.


It uses various ECMAScript 6 features so needs an up-to-date browser (something 
from about the last two to three years, and not IE).


Future plans will include limited editing: in OGL areas only (this will be 
auto-detected, registered OSM users will be able to add designation and 
prow_ref to OSM ways without these tags).


It is also planned to allow users to easily find areas where there are large 
numbers of unmapped or untagged paths, and to allow non-expert users to leave 
notes (e.g.  'this is a permissive pat', 'footpath runs along left side of 
hedge') which can then be used by expert mappers.


At the moment, to minimise server constraints, OS VectorMap District has been 
used as the base layer. It's possible that this will be replaced by a Mapnik 
render if possible - the underlying database at the moment is MongoDB basically 
because it works very nicely with GeoJSON and can do geospatial queries.


It would also be good (as previously discussed) to allow an out-of-copyright OS 
map base layer - the project could also be used to help identify lost rights of 
way for 2026.


A companion Android app for in-the-field use will also begin development very 
soon.


Any other suggestions for features, or any suggestions for improvements on the 
colour scheme would be welcome.


Source code is on gitlab:

https://gitlab.com/nickw1/mapthepaths


Nick



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath mapping

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,


Following on from the recent discussions regarding rights of way and the 
licensing of council data, I would like to announce that the initial - and very 
much prototype - version of 'MapThePaths' is now available.


http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/


This site aims to be a platform to help map, and correctly tag, rights of way 
(and other walkable paths) in England and Wales.


Currently it is a viewer only, it does not yet offer editing facilities, and 
covers rural areas of England only for now (former metropolitan counties and 
urban unitary authorities have been largely excluded to minimise demands on the 
server).  It shows council rights of way (thanks to Barry Cornelius and rowmaps 
for this) superimposed on OSM paths (ways where 
highway=footway,path,bridleway,track,steps,cycleway or service). Both council 
data and OSM data is coloured by designation. OSM paths with no designation are 
shown as grey dashed lines.


You can click on the council paths (which are wider, transparent lines) to get 
the licensing status (is the data OGL?) - thanks to Robert Whittaker for this.


It uses various ECMAScript 6 features so needs an up-to-date browser (something 
from about the last two to three years, and not IE).


Future plans will include limited editing: in OGL areas only (this will be 
auto-detected, registered OSM users will be able to add designation and 
prow_ref to OSM ways without these tags).


It is also planned to allow users to easily find areas where there are large 
numbers of unmapped or untagged paths, and to allow non-expert users to leave 
notes (e.g.  'this is a permissive pat', 'footpath runs along left side of 
hedge') which can then be used by expert mappers.


At the moment, to minimise server constraints, OS VectorMap District has been 
used as the base layer. It's possible that this will be replaced by a Mapnik 
render if possible - the underlying database at the moment is MongoDB basically 
because it works very nicely with GeoJSON and can do geospatial queries.


It would also be good (as previously discussed) to allow an out-of-copyright OS 
map base layer - the project could also be used to help identify lost rights of 
way for 2026.


A companion Android app for in-the-field use will also begin development very 
soon.


Any other suggestions for features, or any suggestions for improvements on the 
colour scheme would be welcome.


Source code is on gitlab:

https://gitlab.com/nickw1/mapthepaths


Nick



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Adam,

That's great - that will be very useful.


Thanks,

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 31 May 2018 19:07:05
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

Hi Nick,

Yes Hampshire's data is unambiguously available for use under OGL3.

Kind regards

Adam

On Thu, 31 May 2018, 09:52 Nick Whitelegg, 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:



(Adam - apologies for not quoting, but this email client performs the annoying 
habit of top-posting and haven't figured out a way to get it to do standard 
quotes).


So, just to clarify, taking my local authority (Hampshire) as an example, does 
this page _definitely_ confirm that their RoW data is available under OGL?


https://www.hants.gov.uk/aboutthecouncil/informationandstats/opendata/opendatasearch/publicrightsofway

Reason being that I'm now in a position where I may be able to do something 
with this data and I'd like to use Hampshire as it's my local county.

Thanks,

Nick



From: Adam Snape mailto:adam.c.sn...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 30 May 2018 11:37:47
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

Hi,

Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use. Many 
councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then state or 
link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms.

Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job, the 
rowmaps site doesn't help with licensing clarity. There are quite a few 
references to unverifiable private email communications where the licence terms 
differ from the publicly available terms. Any mention of the OGL is taken at 
face value even if when checked the licence is actually the OS modified OGL ie. 
the incompatible OS Open Data licence! Perhaps most seriously, rowmaps also 
relies on a misinterpretation of communication with OS to suggest that OS Open 
Data licensed material is now automatically OGL3 licenced material.

All of this matters very little to most users of rowmaps but for OSM purposes 
as we require ODBL compatibility we need greater clarity.

Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with all of 
the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly licensed 
their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them). I'll also try 
and get new or updated data where not currently available or several years old. 
Ideally I'll get the authorities to include a clear unambiguous licence on 
their websites but, failing that, I'll publish the relevant communication 
online so that it is verifiable and we do at least have certainty about the 
data currently available to us.

In the slightly longer term I think our aim needs to be to persuade all 
authorities to proactively publish new versions of their data as open data, 
rather than individuals having to individually badger authorities to update 
their data. Under their Publication Schemes they should start doing this 
automatically once information is supplied the first time, but it seems that 
only a minority of authorities who have released data currently publish it 
proactively.

Kind regards,

Adam


On 27 May 2018 at 11:21, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Thanks for that - looks like a few councils are OGL which means we should 
theoretically be able to add designation tags from the council data.


Agree about not copying the data verbatim from council data - am more 
interested in giving people a way to easily identify council paths unmapped on 
OSM.


Nick





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Council Footpath data

[Nick Whitelegg]

(Adam - apologies for not quoting, but this email client performs the annoying 
habit of top-posting and haven't figured out a way to get it to do standard 
quotes).


So, just to clarify, taking my local authority (Hampshire) as an example, does 
this page _definitely_ confirm that their RoW data is available under OGL?


https://www.hants.gov.uk/aboutthecouncil/informationandstats/opendata/opendatasearch/publicrightsofway

Reason being that I'm now in a position where I may be able to do something 
with this data and I'd like to use Hampshire as it's my local county.

Thanks,

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 30 May 2018 11:37:47
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

Hi,

Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use. Many 
councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then state or 
link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms.

Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job, the 
rowmaps site doesn't help with licensing clarity. There are quite a few 
references to unverifiable private email communications where the licence terms 
differ from the publicly available terms. Any mention of the OGL is taken at 
face value even if when checked the licence is actually the OS modified OGL ie. 
the incompatible OS Open Data licence! Perhaps most seriously, rowmaps also 
relies on a misinterpretation of communication with OS to suggest that OS Open 
Data licensed material is now automatically OGL3 licenced material.

All of this matters very little to most users of rowmaps but for OSM purposes 
as we require ODBL compatibility we need greater clarity.

Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with all of 
the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly licensed 
their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them). I'll also try 
and get new or updated data where not currently available or several years old. 
Ideally I'll get the authorities to include a clear unambiguous licence on 
their websites but, failing that, I'll publish the relevant communication 
online so that it is verifiable and we do at least have certainty about the 
data currently available to us.

In the slightly longer term I think our aim needs to be to persuade all 
authorities to proactively publish new versions of their data as open data, 
rather than individuals having to individually badger authorities to update 
their data. Under their Publication Schemes they should start doing this 
automatically once information is supplied the first time, but it seems that 
only a minority of authorities who have released data currently publish it 
proactively.

Kind regards,

Adam


On 27 May 2018 at 11:21, Nick Whitelegg 
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Thanks for that - looks like a few councils are OGL which means we should 
theoretically be able to add designation tags from the council data.


Agree about not copying the data verbatim from council data - am more 
interested in giving people a way to easily identify council paths unmapped on 
OSM.


Nick





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Council Footpath data

[Nick Whitelegg]

Thanks for that - looks like a few councils are OGL which means we should 
theoretically be able to add designation tags from the council data.


Agree about not copying the data verbatim from council data - am more 
interested in giving people a way to easily identify council paths unmapped on 
OSM.


Nick




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Rob, Jerry, Richard,


Agree with what Rob's saying - while Rowmaps is a good point to find missing 
paths for OSM, the "FPs" 1900 maps could be used to find "green lanes" aka 
"other routes with public access" or unrecorded paths - and could certainly, 
with the other historical OS maps, be used to find missing paths for 2026.


I think with the right website we could get a crowdsourced project going to 
both collect evidence for re-opening paths before the deadline, and, at the 
same time, find missing paths for OSM too. Providing a council data overlay 
would be another way of helping find the OSM paths.


Rob - yes your help on the whole promotion side of things would be very 
valuable as that isn't particularly my strength. If you could have a word with 
NLS to seek permission to use their tiles that would be great too.


Hopefully we'd be ok to use the OOC tileservers of OSM too, though if not I 
guess we could obtain the tiles as a ZIP or tar.gz archive and host them 
separately.


I'd be more than happy - indeed enthusiastic - to do the coding and get initial 
hosting (a Bytemark VM like Freemap's would do for now) - though as I said 
earlier the other skill we need is someone with good HCI/UX skills as that is 
not my area of strength.

(If we have difficulty here, it's conceivable it could be done as a student 
project at my university)


Thinking of a name, how about "Find the Footpaths"?


Nick




From: Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>
Sent: 12 May 2018 23:49:19
To: SK53
Cc: Nick Whitelegg; Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

Hi Jerry, Nick, Richard,

Footpaths was what got me in to OSM so I'm so pleased to see all this :-) 
You've got me excited about getting back out there over the summer and picking 
up as many new paths as possible.

@Jerry: Your comment about the GB1900 caught me off guard at first. You seem to 
be saying that even with filtering there are still too many results from GB1900 
to investigate. Caught off guard because isn't this OSM's strength - the 
ability to go out and crowd source all this? Re-reading your post, I see that 
what you are saying is that OSM has a lot of missing paths but the rowmaps data 
is just a good as a starting point for finding these. The GB1900 data might 
them be used to find stuff missing from the local authorities dataset. Is that 
right or am I still not understanding?

I think we can do a project here. As you know, I'm not so good on the technical 
side, but am more than willing to throw my support behind any project where I 
can (e.g. engaging with NLS, comms, promotion, seeking new members to join the 
hunt and therefore join OSM). It sounds like this is what the 3 of you are 
looking at this already :-). Give me a shout if you need anything.

>Is there permission to use OOC tiles

>The NLS 6 inch maps are needed for good comparison, although I suspect many 
>paths will be on 1:25k

I'm not sure about the OOC tiles; I think Andy Robinson (blackadder) was 
involved with the scanning, but ultimatley these are hosted on OSM servers so 
you need to check with them.

We do have a great relationship with the NLS though. Although they have put 
some of their maps behind a subscription API, they are big supporters of the 
OSM (and OHM) projects. The publish 6 inch and 25 inch [1] for all of Great 
Britain now. I am more than willing to speak with NLS to see if we can 
formalise this as part of a footpath project. There's no harm in asking! Just 
let me know.

P.S. Sorry if this feels like me being slow / repeating the obviously - am 
feeling under the weather at the moment

[1] https://maps.nls.uk/openlayers/?m=1=176

Rob


On Fri, 11 May 2018 at 16:40, SK53 
<sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> wrote:
Quick impressions:

  *   There's a fair amount of noise in text, but most are "F.P."
  *   Lat/lon could be reduced from 15 decimal places, would make file size far 
smaller. OSM use 7, but I suspect 5 (~ 1 m accuracy) would be fine.
  *   Filtering by a buffer round OSM roads does not reduce count enough to be 
useful. 21k points in East Mids goes to 14k with 20 m buffer, 10 with 50 m 
buffer.
  *   Instead created 1000 m buffer around points and looked for distance from 
OSM highways in that buffer. This allows to focus on points which are distant 
from existing highways.
  *   In the main dots which are a long way from highways are clustered in 
areas we already know lack footpaths. Map shows points over 400 m from an OSM 
highway, underlain by a heatmap of total length of missing prows. It is 
apparent that these are coincident (W of Derby, around Buxton, SE Derbyshire, 
Trent Valley in N Notts, much of Lincolnshire). Other areas may be simply a 
result of rather different comparison periods for the data (distance from road 
is 3 years old OSM data). 
https://www.dropb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

[Nick Whitelegg]

Nice.


I may well have time to do it over summer if there's sufficient interest 
(forget May, but June-Sep are relatively quiet for me) from a coding POV but 
would need someone else to do a nice UI/front end for it.


Nick



From: Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net>
Sent: 12 May 2018 15:30:17
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> I realise this is going a bit OT for OSM but wondering if this data,
> together with the newer historic maps from the earlier part of the
> 20th century, could be used to build a platform for the purpose of
> finding these lost paths? Had a quick look yesterday and there
> doesn't appear to currently be a web platform for this purpose.
>
> We could have a base layer of an OOC OS Map from the earlier 20th
> century (up to 50 years ago) with both OSM data and the location of
> these "F.P"s superimposed for the purpose of users searching for these
> lost paths.

I experimented with something like that earlier this year:
https://twitter.com/richardf/status/948578070692290560

Would be great to do it properly but I'm pushed for time at the moment.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
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] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

[Nick Whitelegg]

I realise this is going a bit OT for OSM but wondering if this data, together 
with the newer historic maps from the earlier part of the 20th century, could 
be used to build a platform for the purpose of finding these lost paths? Had a 
quick look yesterday and there doesn't appear to currently be a web platform 
for this purpose.


We could have a base layer of an OOC OS Map from the earlier 20th century (up 
to 50 years ago) with both OSM data and the location of these "F.P"s 
superimposed for the purpose of users searching for these lost paths. When a 
user visits an area with an "F.P" they could annotate with evidence of possible 
current use.


A side effect of people searching for these historic paths could of course be 
finding missing still-extant rights of way  for OSM.


Thoughts on this? Is there permission to use OOC tiles (I've lost track of who 
maintains OOC tileservers these days) in third party projects?


Thanks,

Nick


<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: SK53 <sk53@gmail.com>
Sent: 11 May 2018 16:40:21
To: Rob Nickerson
Cc: Nick Whitelegg; Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

Quick impressions:

  *   There's a fair amount of noise in text, but most are "F.P."
  *   Lat/lon could be reduced from 15 decimal places, would make file size far 
smaller. OSM use 7, but I suspect 5 (~ 1 m accuracy) would be fine.
  *   Filtering by a buffer round OSM roads does not reduce count enough to be 
useful. 21k points in East Mids goes to 14k with 20 m buffer, 10 with 50 m 
buffer.
  *   Instead created 1000 m buffer around points and looked for distance from 
OSM highways in that buffer. This allows to focus on points which are distant 
from existing highways.
  *   In the main dots which are a long way from highways are clustered in 
areas we already know lack footpaths. Map shows points over 400 m from an OSM 
highway, underlain by a heatmap of total length of missing prows. It is 
apparent that these are coincident (W of Derby, around Buxton, SE Derbyshire, 
Trent Valley in N Notts, much of Lincolnshire). Other areas may be simply a 
result of rather different comparison periods for the data (distance from road 
is 3 years old OSM data). 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nz0893l9io61vtk/gb1900_fps1.jpg?dl=0
  *   Paths which were formerly isolated may now be close to new roads and 
therefore get discarded with use of buffers or short distances.
  *   Not clear that searching in urban areas is worthwhile. Using something 
like the OS Urban Area shape files may reduce volume.
  *   Even with these filters the total points more than 500 m from a (2015) 
OSM road is nearly a 1000 for the East Midlands
  *   The NLS 6 inch maps are needed for good comparison, although I suspect 
many paths will be on 1:25k
  *   There are interesting paths which seem to have disappeared entirely from 
the PRoW network, but noting them does require local knowledge rather than a 
bulk comparison. Here are a couple I noted, which also appear on 1:25k and 
therefore look like prima facie cases for lost paths:
 *   https://openstreetmap.lu/os-ooc-nls.html#16/52.9181/-1.2688/nlsos1 
path N-S from New Farm
 *   https://openstreetmap.lu/os-ooc-nls.html#16/52.9503/-1.2603/nlsos1 
path from Noggins Nook to Swanacar Farm

So broadly in conclusion: it doesn't seem to give more than comparison against 
rowmaps for identifying missing paths for OSM, but it does have potential for 
finding lost paths. For the latter case rather more annotation of information 
would be needed.


Jerry

On 10 May 2018 at 22:50, Rob Nickerson 
<rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Many thanks. Now shared with Richard, Nick and Jerry. Wont share publicly yet 
as I wouldn't want to disrupt the project comms plan.

@Dave: Oh yes this is definitely not for OSM import. It's node data for linear 
features for a start!! No, instead this can be used to identify possible 
missing paths which should then be investigated using ground survey, aerial 
imagery and GPS (or Strava) data. See it as a helping hand to direct you where 
to look.

Best,
Rob





On Thu, 10 May 2018, 13:54 SK53, 
<sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> wrote:
Quick correction, as I uploaded heat map to wrong Flickr account. This is the 
proper link: https://flic.kr/p/JSXgyh.

J

On 10 May 2018 1:54 p.m., "SK53" 
<sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> wrote:
Quick correction, as I uploaded heat map to wrong Flickr account. This is the 
proper link: https://flic.kr/p/JSXgyh.

J

On 10 May 2018 at 13:07, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
I just checked on the Vision of Britain site: the core data is currently 
released under CC-BY-NC. I presume OSM-UK have a waiver from these terms.

Undoubtedly there will be rights o

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

[Nick Whitelegg]

I might be potentially interested in developing something with this data, 
partly because I already run a site (freemap) which shows OSM maps for walkers 
and stores them in a PostGIS database - so it should be an easy process to 
filter out the data to find those points which are not close to an OSM highway. 
It would also be easy for me to adapt my existing code to visualise these "FP" 
points. Presumably they are just points with no indication of direction of the 
path? An "FP" label presumably has orientation so something could possibly be 
deduced about its course at that point if orientation was available too.


I also already visualise the data so visualising the missing ROWs would be 
easily done too.


It would be nice to develop features to find nearby locations where there are 
lots of these missing paths, e.g. if I am in Southampton, find the nearest 
village with 10, 20 (or whatever) missing paths within a 5-mile radius.


Would be nice to have an app too so you can find these footpaths while you're 
actually out.



So potentially interested in this, yes. I don't want to commit 100% but would 
be nice to have the data.


Nick




From: Richard Fairhurst 
Sent: 10 May 2018 09:07:49
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Basically we have point data of historic footpaths (some 300k points) and
> I think it would be amazing to compare this to OSM to see if we can find
> more footpaths to map.

Very cool. Could you post the data somewhere?

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

___
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] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Nick Whitelegg]

EDIT: sorry, silly question. For some reason I overlooked that JOSM works with 
OSM OAuth, so the answer to the general question "can a non-web app 
authenticate with OSM" would appear to be yes.


Nick


____
From: Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>
Sent: 01 May 2018 16:48:21
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?


... this would be with a user's individual account by the way, not some generic 
anonymous account.


Thanks,

Nick


____
From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 01 May 2018 16:46:53
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?



I realise I'm going a bit OT here and this is more a dev topic, but  while 
we're on this topic, I'm just wondering whether it possible to authenticate via 
OSM OAuth from an app directly? StreetComplete calls the login page of OSM by 
invoking the web browser.


I'm guessing the answer might be no because OAuth generally requires a callback 
URL, however there do seem to be a few OAuth 1.x libraries for Android out 
there.


Just wondering as I have my own app (geared at UK walkers contributing to OSM) 
which will ask users to authenticate with OSM and it would be nicer if it could 
be done in-app.

Thanks,

Nick



From: Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>
Sent: 01 May 2018 15:42:10
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

On 01/05/2018 12:43, David Woolley wrote:
> On 01/05/18 12:23, David Woolley wrote:
>> I don't know about your tool, but it is essential that every user has
>> an explicit personal account with OSM, and that they are set up to
>> receive emails if people add changeset comments, or post messages to
>> their OSM account. maps.me has a high incidence of people who seem
>> not to notice changeset comments.
>
> In particular, apps need to be able to recognize that there is a 0
> hour block on a user and allow them to access the changeset comments
> to see the reason, and remove the block.  I don't know how the API
> distinguishes administrative blocks from other failures.

 From a DWG perspective, I don't think we're ever been asked to or
needed to "0-hour block" a Street Complete user.  They know what OSM is,
know what they signed up for and are aware that it's a community and
that people might contact them about their edits.

We have had to block users of other problem apps - in one notable case
because a "surveying" app added the same data, many times, at the same
(incorrect) latitude each time (forming a nice ring just south of the
equator).  Other users of "map" apps sometimes don't understand what OSM
is at all; they don't realise that when they "add a note" they're adding
a note to OSM, not just to their personal map.  That's an issue with the
apps concerned though, and doesn't apply to Street Complete.

Best Regards,

Andy


___
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] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Nick Whitelegg]

... this would be with a user's individual account by the way, not some generic 
anonymous account.


Thanks,

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 01 May 2018 16:46:53
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?



I realise I'm going a bit OT here and this is more a dev topic, but  while 
we're on this topic, I'm just wondering whether it possible to authenticate via 
OSM OAuth from an app directly? StreetComplete calls the login page of OSM by 
invoking the web browser.


I'm guessing the answer might be no because OAuth generally requires a callback 
URL, however there do seem to be a few OAuth 1.x libraries for Android out 
there.


Just wondering as I have my own app (geared at UK walkers contributing to OSM) 
which will ask users to authenticate with OSM and it would be nicer if it could 
be done in-app.

Thanks,

Nick



From: Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>
Sent: 01 May 2018 15:42:10
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

On 01/05/2018 12:43, David Woolley wrote:
> On 01/05/18 12:23, David Woolley wrote:
>> I don't know about your tool, but it is essential that every user has
>> an explicit personal account with OSM, and that they are set up to
>> receive emails if people add changeset comments, or post messages to
>> their OSM account. maps.me has a high incidence of people who seem
>> not to notice changeset comments.
>
> In particular, apps need to be able to recognize that there is a 0
> hour block on a user and allow them to access the changeset comments
> to see the reason, and remove the block.  I don't know how the API
> distinguishes administrative blocks from other failures.

 From a DWG perspective, I don't think we're ever been asked to or
needed to "0-hour block" a Street Complete user.  They know what OSM is,
know what they signed up for and are aware that it's a community and
that people might contact them about their edits.

We have had to block users of other problem apps - in one notable case
because a "surveying" app added the same data, many times, at the same
(incorrect) latitude each time (forming a nice ring just south of the
equator).  Other users of "map" apps sometimes don't understand what OSM
is at all; they don't realise that when they "add a note" they're adding
a note to OSM, not just to their personal map.  That's an issue with the
apps concerned though, and doesn't apply to Street Complete.

Best Regards,

Andy


___
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] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Nick Whitelegg]

I realise I'm going a bit OT here and this is more a dev topic, but  while 
we're on this topic, I'm just wondering whether it possible to authenticate via 
OSM OAuth from an app directly? StreetComplete calls the login page of OSM by 
invoking the web browser.


I'm guessing the answer might be no because OAuth generally requires a callback 
URL, however there do seem to be a few OAuth 1.x libraries for Android out 
there.


Just wondering as I have my own app (geared at UK walkers contributing to OSM) 
which will ask users to authenticate with OSM and it would be nicer if it could 
be done in-app.

Thanks,

Nick



From: Andy Townsend 
Sent: 01 May 2018 15:42:10
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

On 01/05/2018 12:43, David Woolley wrote:
> On 01/05/18 12:23, David Woolley wrote:
>> I don't know about your tool, but it is essential that every user has
>> an explicit personal account with OSM, and that they are set up to
>> receive emails if people add changeset comments, or post messages to
>> their OSM account. maps.me has a high incidence of people who seem
>> not to notice changeset comments.
>
> In particular, apps need to be able to recognize that there is a 0
> hour block on a user and allow them to access the changeset comments
> to see the reason, and remove the block.  I don't know how the API
> distinguishes administrative blocks from other failures.

 From a DWG perspective, I don't think we're ever been asked to or
needed to "0-hour block" a Street Complete user.  They know what OSM is,
know what they signed up for and are aware that it's a community and
that people might contact them about their edits.

We have had to block users of other problem apps - in one notable case
because a "surveying" app added the same data, many times, at the same
(incorrect) latitude each time (forming a nice ring just south of the
equator).  Other users of "map" apps sometimes don't understand what OSM
is at all; they don't realise that when they "add a note" they're adding
a note to OSM, not just to their personal map.  That's an issue with the
apps concerned though, and doesn't apply to Street Complete.

Best Regards,

Andy


___
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] Christmas / New Year Footpath Mapping meet

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Phil,


OK - thanks, that would be great.

It will be Bunbury (near Tarporley).


It's not 100% but I could quite possibly do Thurs 28 or maybe Fri 29.

Thanks,

Nick


From: Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk>
Sent: 07 December 2017 13:51:18
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org; SK53; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Christmas / New Year Footpath Mapping meet

I will be travelling along the A50 through Stoke so can always pick you up from 
Stoke station.

Which part of Cheshire will you be in?

Phil (trigpoint)

On 7 December 2017 12:41:31 GMT+00:00, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
Derby is probably doable by several folk; but probably best to talk to Phil 
Barnes trigpoint who is likely to be coming from Wem and therefore passes 
several potential link-up points.

Jerry

On 7 December 2017 at 11:43, Nick Whitelegg 
<nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote:


Maybe a long shot but is anyone attending who might be coming from the 
Derby/Uttoxeter/Stoke areas?


Reason being, I'm probably staying with my family in Cheshire that week, and 
might be able to make it if anyone can give me a lift from a station on the 
Crewe-Derby line. Or even somewhere like Stafford.


If not, no worries!

Thanks,

Nick



From: SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>>
Sent: 06 December 2017 19:42:34
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Christmas / New Year Footpath Mapping meet

Link for Doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/d2hehkgrv7k7cq4a

Note Saturday 30th may be awkward for me, should learn a bit later this evening.

Jerry

On 6 December 2017 at 14:58, SK53 
<sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All,

I'll shortly be sending a link to a Doodle poll to try & select a suitable time 
for a Midlands footpath mapping meeting after Christmas.

In all likelihood, the meeting will be centred on Coton-in-the-Elms in S. 
Derbyshire, a few miles S of Swadlincote and SE of Burton-on-Trent. The 
location is easily accessed from the A42 and A38.

This area is odd: many paths in woodland areas of the National Forest have been 
mapped in great detail, but there are still lots of missing footpaths as well 
as ones missing detail, particularly centred on Coton-in-the-Elms. Detail in 
the village is again very patchy: some shops and schools, but on a flying visit 
yesterday I added 4 pubs.

The main caveat about the area is that most of the pubs are either not open at 
lunchtime or don't do food. The one that does is perfectly pleasant, but seems 
to be under new management and has mixed reviews recently (Bulls 
Head<https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5266821772>, Rosliston); and 
unfortunately The Black Horse<http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5266509202> in 
Coton-in-the-Elms which is in the Good Beer Guide only does filled cobs 
(sandwich rolls to those uninitiated in E. Mids dialect) and may not be open 
for lunch. So we'll probably have to take our chances with the former.

The geology is Mercia Mudstone, and much of it is arable, so likely to be muddy 
and claggy underfoot.

This 
umap<http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/prow-around-coton-in-the-elms_184957> 
shows the status of footpath mapping in the area in August. I'll update it 
shortly & add Warwickshire & Staffordshire paths (extracted from my EMids PRoW 
data).

Regards,

Jerry



--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Christmas / New Year Footpath Mapping meet

[Nick Whitelegg]

Maybe a long shot but is anyone attending who might be coming from the 
Derby/Uttoxeter/Stoke areas?


Reason being, I'm probably staying with my family in Cheshire that week, and 
might be able to make it if anyone can give me a lift from a station on the 
Crewe-Derby line. Or even somewhere like Stafford.


If not, no worries!

Thanks,

Nick



From: SK53 
Sent: 06 December 2017 19:42:34
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Christmas / New Year Footpath Mapping meet

Link for Doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/d2hehkgrv7k7cq4a

Note Saturday 30th may be awkward for me, should learn a bit later this evening.

Jerry

On 6 December 2017 at 14:58, SK53 
> wrote:
Dear All,

I'll shortly be sending a link to a Doodle poll to try & select a suitable time 
for a Midlands footpath mapping meeting after Christmas.

In all likelihood, the meeting will be centred on Coton-in-the-Elms in S. 
Derbyshire, a few miles S of Swadlincote and SE of Burton-on-Trent. The 
location is easily accessed from the A42 and A38.

This area is odd: many paths in woodland areas of the National Forest have been 
mapped in great detail, but there are still lots of missing footpaths as well 
as ones missing detail, particularly centred on Coton-in-the-Elms. Detail in 
the village is again very patchy: some shops and schools, but on a flying visit 
yesterday I added 4 pubs.

The main caveat about the area is that most of the pubs are either not open at 
lunchtime or don't do food. The one that does is perfectly pleasant, but seems 
to be under new management and has mixed reviews recently (Bulls 
Head, Rosliston); and 
unfortunately The Black Horse in 
Coton-in-the-Elms which is in the Good Beer Guide only does filled cobs 
(sandwich rolls to those uninitiated in E. Mids dialect) and may not be open 
for lunch. So we'll probably have to take our chances with the former.

The geology is Mercia Mudstone, and much of it is arable, so likely to be muddy 
and claggy underfoot.

This 
umap 
shows the status of footpath mapping in the area in August. I'll update it 
shortly & add Warwickshire & Staffordshire paths (extracted from my EMids PRoW 
data).

Regards,

Jerry

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[Nick Whitelegg]

>2. Permissive paths: I do not understand “permissive paths need showing; 
>Andy's >cartography does not yet do this but again this is something I have 
>experience with.”  >Woodhouse Farm in Ipsden, South Oxfordshire has provided a 
>permissive footpath >and permissive bridleways.  Both are shown on Andy’s map 
>>(https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=53.11419;>lon=-1.31171on=-1.31171>):
> the footpath is overlaid with a pink dashed line and the >bridleway is shown 
>as others, simply.  I wonder what is the intention so far as >permissive paths 
>are concerned?  Woodhouse Farm has done walkers and horse >riders a tremendous 
>service by making these paths available.  The alternative PRoW >route would 
>have to be through woodland, obscuring otherwise beautiful views, >which we 
>can enjoy so much now.


By this I mean permissive paths are shown (Andy, correct me if I'm wrong) with 
the default black dashed lines rather than their own colour scheme, e.g


https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=50.97926=-0.9845


If you look at Butser Hill (the area round the 270m summit) there are various 
paths rendered in black dashed lines; all these are tagged as permissive.



Nick


From: Bob Hawkins 
Sent: 31 October 2017 19:04:55
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

I wish to add my own pennies’ worth from a walker’s and mapper’s perspective on 
three matters:
1. The portrayal of barriers: we know kissing gates are not rendered in OSM but 
are rendered in Andy Townsend’s map.  In neither case, though, do barriers 
stand out strongly enough, in my opinion.  I created coloured images of a gate, 
kissing gate and stile for use with my Garmin eTrex Legend many years ago for 
this reason.  I continue to use them now in Locus Map on my smartphone.  I wish 
more attention would be applied; to place an appropriate image within a square, 
even, so that they are more visible.
2. Permissive paths: I do not understand “permissive paths need showing; Andy's 
cartography does not yet do this but again this is something I have experience 
with.”  Woodhouse Farm in Ipsden, South Oxfordshire has provided a permissive 
footpath and permissive bridleways.  Both are shown on Andy’s map 
(https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=53.11419=-1.31171):
 the footpath is overlaid with a pink dashed line and the bridleway is shown as 
others, simply.  I wonder what is the intention so far as permissive paths are 
concerned?  Woodhouse Farm has done walkers and horse riders a tremendous 
service by making these paths available.  The alternative PRoW route would have 
to be through woodland, obscuring otherwise beautiful views, which we can enjoy 
so much now.
3. Writing of beautiful views, my final item concerns scenic paths:  I have 
commented elsewhere that I wish paths with scenic views could be treated like 
the road atlases I remember where a green ribbon was placed alongside such 
roads.  I have been unaware that “description” tags have been used in OSM in 
the same way.  I wonder, though, what purpose such a tag achieves, or could 
achieve?

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
  Virus-free. 
www.avast.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[Nick Whitelegg]

Thanks for all the suggestions, and Andy - thanks for the hosting info.


To answer the questions that came up:


- contours should be easy, yes as I already have a DB containing them. It's 
just a case of using them with the current version of Mapnik; I've added 
contours with Mapnik before but a good number of years ago now.


- The carto style is indeed a fork of the original OSM carto style, forked by 
Andy some time ago (I believe before the road colour scheme was altered); it's 
now been further forked for the OSM UK project.


Thanks,

Nick


From: Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>
Sent: 30 October 2017 17:34:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

On 30/10/2017 08:58, Nick Whitelegg wrote:



As you may know, the plan is to produce a UK specific OSM mapping site. A start 
on this has been made here:


http://www.free-map.org.uk/osmuk/


using a fork of SomeoneElse (Andy)'s cartography with one very minor tweak so 
far, namely footpaths and bridleways are rendered in a style similar to 
Landranger maps.

Glad to be of service :)

There are a couple of other tweaks you'd probably want to do:

o One is to reinstate cycleways as "a thing".  In order to free up a colour to 
use for public bridleways I used blue for that and just rendered cycleways like 
other paths (coloured according to designation, dashed for wide and dotted for 
narrow).  Green's a problem because so much on an OSM map is different shades 
of grreen.  That's fine for me (I'm not a cyclist) but something a bit more 
inclusive would probably include cycleways.  Not sure what colour you'd want to 
go for though - if you want to go more for OS-style colours you'd have a lot 
less colour on the map than most OSM-based ones (styles designed as an 
"underlay" like Mapbox Streets aside).

o Another is railways - I'm guessing you'd want to remove the rendering of 
dismantled railways, and also possibly abandoned ones, but I'd suggest keeping 
proposed ones so that people can see where HS2 is going(!) (as an example, 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=53.11419=-1.31171
 shows all three types).

o If you want to do "Welsh Language first in Wales" as described in 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/42069 I can make the load 
scripts available for that.  It's pretty much what's in the diary entry but is 
a runnable script.


In terms of server space, we did have a server available to us for development 
purposes (provided by Birmingham in Real Time) however this will be unavailable 
for a month or two; however our contact there is going to recommend some cheap 
hosting options.

For info, the map.atownsend.org.uk site (which covers the UK and Ireland) 
currently fits nicely on a 4Gb memory / 100Gb SSD disk server at Hetzner; at 
<£15 per month you could probably short-term fund it with a whip-round in a 
pub.  I'm sure that the other competing options - OVH et al - are similar; for 
the size of server I wanted for the UK Hetzner made sense for me at the 
beginning of the year; slightly larger or smaller on any spec parameter and 
something else might have been better.

Best Regards,

Andy


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,


Much of this is being discussed in Loomio but was having a discussion over the 
weekend with a fellow mapper and we thought that it might be valuable to 
mention it on the mailing list too.


As you may know, the plan is to produce a UK specific OSM mapping site. A start 
on this has been made here:


http://www.free-map.org.uk/osmuk/


using a fork of SomeoneElse (Andy)'s cartography with one very minor tweak so 
far, namely footpaths and bridleways are rendered in a style similar to 
Landranger maps. The test site covers Hampshire only due to server constraints.


Github repositories are at

https://github.com/osmuk/


specifically:


- website_real - the coding behind the website (JavaScript; plan is to use PHP 
server side)

- openstreetmap-carto-AJT - Andy's fork of the OSM map style, further forked

- SomeoneElse-style - Lua script to transform tags, plus supporting shell 
script to download OSM data from geofabrik and populate the database.


Would be great to see people contribute to this, particularly cartography and 
UI experts, but also on the coding, as I have limited time and can spend a 
little, but not _huge_ amounts of time on this.


Would also be good to see a few suggestions for features. A few of mine; on the 
cartography side:

- add contours (I have done this on Freemap so I should be able to figure out 
this)

- hill shading (not had any experience of this though I know it has been done)

- Landranger-style rendering? Any other preferences?

- permissive paths need showing; Andy's cartography does not yet do this but 
again this is something I have experience with.


On the features side (walking oriented most of mine):


- click on POIs to get information about them, e.g. links to Wikipedia articles 
and websites, real ale status for pubs, opening times, values of the 
"description" tag, etc

- click on footpaths to get information about them e.g. if a particular 
footpath has nice views described in the 'description' tag, this should be shown

- ability to re-tag footpaths (e.g. add PROW ref, description tag) by clicking 
on them (users can already authenticate with OSM via OAuth)

- link with Mapillary to show photos along a given route?

- would things like user-defined walking routes be getting too 
walking-specific? Who should we be aiming this site at? Outdoor users (in which 
case, such things would be valuable) or general UK users?

- any others?


Main thing is to get an idea of who we are aiming this site at, as the 
features, and indeed the rendering, will depend on this.


In terms of server space, we did have a server available to us for development 
purposes (provided by Birmingham in Real Time) however this will be unavailable 
for a month or two; however our contact there is going to recommend some cheap 
hosting options.


Nick






___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] OSM UK Web Map - Interested in contributing?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,


I'm leading the project to develop the map on the future OSM-UK website and am 
looking for contributors.


To summarise: the idea is to do a UK-specific map rendering, with a map 
friendly for countryside users such as walkers, cyclists and horse riders as 
well as general map users.


We hope to have a server available soon. I am happy to do much of the work on 
this, e.g. installing the necessary software (PostGIS and Mapnik etc) as well 
as developing much of the client- and server-side scripting code, but am 
seeking contributors and input in these areas in particular.


* The actual rendering. I have some ideas here on how to make the map friendly 
for countryside users, but am seeking input from professional cartographers and 
general map users too. General consensus at the moment is to go for a style 
resembling the OS Landranger (for the countryside) as that is what users are 
used to. This is something we can start discussing now - while waiting for the 
server.


* Web design and UX experts. These are not my strong points and we really need 
people to contribute here!


* Help on the coding - obviously I can't do it all! We'd need front end and 
back end coders - original thought was PHP for the latter but I'm wondering 
whether node.js / Express.js would be feasible as Mapnik works with node 
natively. Need to look into this but this isn't urgent for the moment.


There is a group on Loomio to discuss this so if you're interested please 
follow the invitation link:


https://www.loomio.org/invitations/f845be06704d98e85c91


Thanks,

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering Stiles

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,


Not just yet but the latest version of Freemap 
(www.free-map.org.uk) will shortly show stiles - 
along with field boundaries which is something I've been meaning to do for ages 
but never got round to until now.

In case you're not sure it's "barrier=stile" to mark a stile.


Nick



From: Ian Caldwell 
Sent: 05 April 2017 10:09:30
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Rendering Stiles

I am having a conversation with a new mapper, he was adding stiles by using 
name="stile".

The reason he is interested in stiles is as he says:  "I like to walk with my 
dog but find that many of the stiles are not dog friendly and, being almost 
eighty, I  find it difficult to lift my dog bodily over the stile."

One of the reasons I think he was adding  name="stile". is that stiles are not 
rendered on the standard map. Is there are web based map that does render 
stiles? I cannot find one.


Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Reminder: OSM UK meeting: dial in numbers

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Rob,


Would like to give belated apologies for missing the meeting tonight.


Was anything coding related discussed? Any ideas for websites/apps, etc?


Depending on the project I might be interested in contributing to the coding.


Thanks,

Nick



From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 22 February 2017 19:47
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Reminder: OSM UK meeting: dial in numbers

The meeting starts at 8pm. Here are the dial in details (posted in hackpad so I 
can remove them after the call).

https://hackpad.com/Dial-in-details-1jeM4K1Wl5G
[https://hackpad.com/static/img/hackpad-logo-112.png]

Dial in details
hackpad.com
OSM UK meeting starts at 8pm (Wednesday Feb 22nd) Meeting has ended.



Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Location: High accuracy mode on android

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Andy, thanks for this. To clarify... I was mapping out in an area of 
heathland in east Hampshire, mapping footpaths and tracks so hopefully it 
should be pure GPS. On the edits history it's labelled as "Longmoor Part 1" and 
"Longmoor Part 2" in case anyone does want to query it later.


Would have been mightily annoyed if I had to undo 6-odd hours of mapping as it 
was a very productive day!


Apparently this "feature" has been corrected in Android 7. Good!


Nick



From: Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>
Sent: 09 October 2016 12:46:13
To: Nick Whitelegg; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Location: High accuracy mode on android

Short answer: Probably not.

Longer answer:

There are two bits to this. One is where your phone got its location from and 
the other is what you actually added to OSM.

Taking the first bit first, it would depend on where the app got its location 
from. If the app said that it uses Play Services if "high accuracy" is set (in 
the app), then you've got to assume that is what it is using. If you're in the 
middle of nowhere then that location is going to be based on GPS only. If 
you're in a town it'll use wifi hotspots that Google users have seen previously 
as well. The third component, cell site location, is unlikely to give you 
anything more useful than the other two (when I last looked at the accuracy of 
that in town, which was pre 4g, it was more than 500m, so not much use).

The second bit is I would expect dependant on a whole bunch of things - I use 
GPS traces, Bing imagery, OS Streetview in addition to my own recollection of 
what things actually looked like.

If you were recording a GPS trace in the centre of a town, using mostly local 
wifi hotspots for location, and converting that trace to a way in OSM without 
engaging brain, then it could be argued that Google's locations are getting 
into OSM. As you aren't doing that, I doubt that it can (notwithstanding that 
I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect that a lawyer could argue about anything if 
necessary).

It does depend on the app of course - I'm writing this on a phone that runs 
Android apps but doesn't support Play Services, but that's a rapidly 
diminishing segment of the market unless Amazon decides to head-butt that 
plate-glass window again or possibly Samsung thinks they need to break free of 
Google. It also depends on user input - for example MAPS.ME does use Google 
Play Services but does allow user placement of POIs? prior to saving.

From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2016 12:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Location: High accuracy mode on android


Hi, just wanted to check something. Unintentionally I had location on High 
accuracy mode on android when mapping last week... Annoyingly it sets it to 
this each time you turn location on... And the documentation says it uses 
Google location services. Will this violate any copyright? Hope not as it will 
mean deleting mapping from last week. Don't think it will but thought I'd best 
check.

Thanks, Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Location: High accuracy mode on android

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi, just wanted to check something. Unintentionally I had location on High 
accuracy mode on android when mapping last week... Annoyingly it sets it to 
this each time you turn location on... And the documentation says it uses 
Google location services. Will this violate any copyright? Hope not as it will 
mean deleting mapping from last week. Don't think it will but thought I'd best 
check.

Thanks, Nick
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Nick Whitelegg]

>So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path;
>foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may be
>wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot.  Renderers and
>routers will, I think follow this policy.


I would also have to say no to this - we need some way of mapping paths where 
it's not known if there is permissive access or not; I frequently come across 
such paths. highway=footway with no other tags is a good, clear way of implying 
this.


highway=footway or path should really mean "it's just a physical path", we 
shouldn't really be assuming things about access. Then add explicit access tags 
if we know it's permissive (or designation=public_footpath if it's known to be 
a RoW).


From: David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk>
Sent: 02 October 2016 14:21:17
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

On 02/10/16 13:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive
> (etc) or designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them that
> they are public access.

Whether or not there is a formal statement of this anywhere an
unspecified access is normally understood to be access=yes for the
normal users of an element type in the country.

So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path;
foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may be
wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot.  Renderers and
routers will, I think follow this policy.

>
> It is completely unreasonable for landowners to have a go at us just for
> showing a path on the map. Just because it's on the map, it doesn't
> implicitly mean it's public.

I would say if it is mapped as footway or path and doesn't have an
explicit access, it does implicitly allow foot use by the general
public.  I think the landowner could reasonably expect an explicit
access tag with restricted rights.  That is best done by giving access=
for the most permissive and cancelling other rights using detailed
categories, even though there is an element of mapping for the renderer
in that.

This needs resolving fairly quickly, otherwise the landowner will take
matters into their own hands, register to edit, and fix the problem in a
way that suits them, which will probably not involve the subtleties of
coding, but simply a deletion of all the paths he thinks the public
should not use.
>


___
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] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Nick Whitelegg]

Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive (etc) or 
designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them that they are public 
access.


It is completely unreasonable for landowners to have a go at us just for 
showing a path on the map. Just because it's on the map, it doesn't implicitly 
mean it's public.


From: Richard Fairhurst 
Sent: 02 October 2016 11:33:37
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

Frederik Ramm quoted Mr Angry:
> "NONE of the paths indicated on the map that proceed north through
> Upper Booth Farm are public footpaths"

And indeed they're not tagged as such: they are tagged as the perennially
useless highway=path, some of them with highway=permissive, while the
Pennine Way PRoW is tagged (correctly) as highway=footway, foot=yes. I
suspect this is as least as much an osm-carto rendering issue as it is a
mapping issue.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Upper-Booth-camp-site-Pennine-Way-near-Edale-tp5883692p5883715.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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