On 1 July 2010 09:59, Henry Gomersall <[email protected]> wrote: As a cyclist, I'm keen to say I'd find the a representation of what is > on the ground more useful. One of my pet annoyances with maps is when > they don't agree with data on the ground. Imagine trying to find an > obscure cycle route, labelled as RCN on the map with a sign that says > NCN. Its an extra layer of confusion that I've often encountered with > crap (usually foreign) maps. >
As an aside, one interesting thing I spotted on a recent holiday in the Lake District was that the OS Explorer maps often showed two paths side-by-side. One was a public footpath (green dashed line), the other simply a path (black dotted line). The guidebooks often suggested following the dotted line, which confused me, until when I got there I realised that there was only one physical path to follow, and that this matches the dotted line. As I understand it, what's happened in these cases is that, over time, the physical path has deviated from the legal right of way (either through re-paving, or short-cutting, etc). In a couple of instances, I even spotted official notices warning people that the legal right of way was being updated to match the physical one. There's clearly a lag in the time it takes to update the legal rights of way, hence the situation of seeing two paths on the map. Pretty confusing, although I'm not sure what could be done about it (would it be better to only show the physical paths in these instances?) Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
