From:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/21098-eyre-street-basin-bridge-eyre-street-birmingham-soho-loop
it seems that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245524100 is the "Eyre
Street Basin bridge".
However, I think we'd need a licence-compatible source.
Nathan
On 24/07/2023 16:24, Andy
Hi all,
First time posting to this mailing list as I'm new (ish) to the area.
I've found that a lot of the roads in Digbeth (Birmingham) are tagged as
residential roads. These roads, as far as I'm aware, are minor roads
through a fairly industrial part of town. I'd have thought they'd be
2020 3:47 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field
On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:
> 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=di
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 b
As a public right of way, the highway exists by law - regardless of any
evidence on the ground or lack thereof.
I suggest not removing the section, 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
> Gareth L
> If there's literally no trace of the path any more, I'd be more inclined to
> report it to the local council RoW officer before mapping something that
> doesn't exist on the ground.
Of course, just because *evidence* of it doesn't exist on the ground, doesn't
mean the route itself
Hi all,
Possibly not the correct place to raise this but I was wondering if anyone knew
what the plans for Potlatch 2 are?
Adobe Flash will be unsupported from 31 December 2020
(https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/end-of-life.html) . On, or around
this date, Flash support will be
I also note that the editor changed Rockall from “island” to “bare rock”, and
that Colin has question this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624262
For what it’s worth, I suggest the correct tag for Rockall is “islet”:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dislet This is
Hi all,
Just to drag this back up - I encountered an unmapped showground (Chipping,
Lancashire) whilst adding PROWs and don't know the best way to tag. It appears
to hold a several large shows each year (well presumably not this year!) but
doesn't appear to be a recreational site.
I found
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case wrote:
> Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have
> released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to
> produce.
>
> It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an un
be both
acceptable (though, of course, only one should be used per PROW). They serve
the same function and can easily be crossed matched by third party services.
From: Tony OSM
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:56 AM
To: nathan case ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire
I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of
the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used
on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they
hire,
you might be interested in my tools at
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/lancs/
Best wishes,
Robert.
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 11:29, nathan case wrote:
> I’m using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson’s email on
> 11 Nov 2019) to map Lancashire’s public righ
Hi all,
I'm using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson's email on 11
Nov 2019) to map Lancashire's public rights of way (PROW) under the council's
open data licence.
Generally, any existing paths already marked on the map fit quite well with the
vector files of the PROWs. So
I’m fairly sure Potlach (assuming you want to tackle this via a browser editor)
allows you to delete larger areas in one go – rather than deleting point by
point.
Cheers.
From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:43 AM
To: Talk-GB ; Jez Nicholson
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]
Thanks both - as it currently stands the whole town green is outlined by
"boundary=protected_area & protect_class=21 & protection_title=common" (as
town_green wasn’t an option, though, I actually added
protection_title2=town_green).
4/2020 13:40, nathan case wrote:
> I ruled it out because, from the same wiki:
>
> "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and
> "parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and
> natural state should not get
I ruled it out because, from the same wiki:
"This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and
"parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and
natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like
boundary=national_park"
Thanks.
On 2020-04-03 12:48, nathan case wrote:
Hi all,
I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a “Town
Green”.
Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329
News:
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-
Hi all,
I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a "Town
Green".
Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329
News:
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617
For those
20 matches
Mail list logo
