[Talk-GB] OSM Birmingham & Solihull limited edition map now on sale
To celebrate the completion of base mapping for the city of Birmingham, UK we, being the local OSMers here, have had a map printed to show of our endeavours. The print run for Edition 1 was limited to just 50 and 10 have already gone to those who helped make it all happen. The rest we would like to offer for sale to cover the cost of printing the batch. The map is basically this one linked below but printed as a 300dpi raster TIF rather than the PDF, however we havent lost any definition, its a great map: http://ajr.hopto.org/osm/MappaMerciaBrumEd1.pdf (warning 4MB over a slow connection) It's printed on A0 matt poster paper to produce a map that is 841mm x 1189mm. They have then been hand folded to make a traditional folded map much like an Ordnance Survey map but without the card cover. More details here: http://blog.mappa-mercia.org/2009/03/birmingham-solihull-map-now-in-print.ht ml Each map of the 40 left is numbered starting at 11. The price will be £8 each plus P&P at cost depending upon where it's going. If you are interested please email me at my mappa-mercia email address a...@mappa-mercia.org with details of how many you would like and where they need to go, I'll then respond with the total price inc P&P and details of how to pay. Orders will be processed on a first come first served basis. Once they are all gone thats it. If it is successful we will probably do a further map next year after we complete the Black Country and Coventry. Cheers Andy For more about mappa-mercia see www.mappa-mercia.org ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
On 03/04/09 13:43, Gregory Williams wrote: -Original Message- From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02 To: Richard Mann Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is signed as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway, which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default). And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are wider than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway. It will come as no surprise to you that I completely disagree with your approach to this whole subject. Indeed. Current guidance (though admittedly not always heeded) in the UK is for a minimum of 2.5m wide for a cycleway. So only applying highway=cycleway to ways less than 2m wide would mean that we can't add any new cycleways that follow the guidance. Yes for example my route to work goes along a long section of NCR which is probably only 40 cm wide. But it's very definitely a cycleway. Cheers Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote: > FWIW, I agree largely with the specific points on your wiki page, but I don't > think it will happen because of the effort involved. The wiki page wasn't really supposed to be a "this is how it needs to be" solution - the hope was to get people talking about how stuff can be improved without immediately dismissing anything that wasn't on the path of least resistance. I can understand people being indifferent, but to be met with sarcastic replies and put-downs instead of intelligent conversation was pretty offputting. Personally, I don't think the current tagging scheme is really maintainable in the long run and that eventually there will need to be a revolution, rather than evolution, in the way the data is represented, and I worry about the future of project if people with new ideas are turned away like this. > There is also a camp which actively > wants a node to be able to have more than one "type" in your terminology: we > have (non-accidental) examples of place=town and building=town_hall for > example, and (worse) place=town and amenity=post_box on the same node. I > think that's ludicrous myself, and I'm sure you do too, but there are those > who don't see it that way. I agree that this sounds pretty crazy (although I'm rather of the opinion that using a node instead of an area to identify a town for anything other than a temporary measure is wrong). There are a lot of cases where tagging objects as multiple things makes sense though - one example was given on the wiki page with roads that become pistes in the winter, but there are other such examples. There may even be merit in having a single node tagged as both a posting box and a bus stop if it happens to be a pole with both a posting box and a bus stop mounted on it. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
On 03/04/2009 14:11, Steve Hill wrote: > However, mistake or not, we have what we have and making fundamental > changes doesn't seem especially likely (I have in the past made > suggestions regarding the fundamental data structure and have been met > with nothing but sarcastic replies and put-downs - I find it quite > depressing that no one seems interested in even thinking about any > revolutionary changes instead of just continuing down a potentially > dead-end route. See my brain-dump on the wiki: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Steve_Hill) We don't really have a mechanism for making that kind of decision collectively. It's easy for someone to influence how new tags are used, for example, as those just require someone to start doing it, or to be rendered. If it's a good idea people will use it, if not it will die. But unless it can be upward compatible, it is just much harder to achieve with the fundamental infrastructure and requires at least some measure of concensus but that's not nearly enough: the will and skill to put in the hours to make the change is the thing that will actually make something happen. Relations only got introduced (and segments abolished) because someone (Frederick mainly) got down to it and actually did it rather than just talking about it. There seems to be a proposal for a radical shake-up-and-lets-start-from-scratch every few weeks. There has to be a really, really good reason to turn over the apple cart because the cost is just so high. FWIW, I agree largely with the specific points on your wiki page, but I don't think it will happen because of the effort involved. What we have now is not perfect, but it can and largely does model what you are suggesting already, so there is no huge impetus to change it. There is also a camp which actively wants a node to be able to have more than one "type" in your terminology: we have (non-accidental) examples of place=town and building=town_hall for example, and (worse) place=town and amenity=post_box on the same node. I think that's ludicrous myself, and I'm sure you do too, but there are those who don't see it that way. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Exhibition for Construction and Engineering Surveying
If anyone is in and around York Racecourse on 22 or 23 April then you might think to tout OSM around to some of the exhibitors at XCES. It would be useful to get some contact names for some of these organisations there. I might have gone myself but I'm not available those two days. http://asp.artegis.com/xces/2009 It's a trade thing but just stick OpenStreetMap on the registration form. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
>Having some time on my hands at the moment, I'm trying to get my head round some of the inconsistencies/duplications/gaps in the usage of the >highway key. Having looked at the recent widescale adoption of "highway=path" in Germany it is clearly fulfilling a need. I'm coming to the view that >this is a need that we (England and Wales) didn't know existed, because we're used to red dotted lines for country footpaths, and have fallen into >using the same tag for rural and urban footpaths, even though they are generally physically quite different. We've therefore lost some of the physical >information you get on OS maps, where old hands know to prefer footpaths that follow tracks etc. This relates to my plans for Freemap/OpenFootMap, which specifically targets walkers. My current rendering plans are to render two layers: firstly a lower layer representing physical surface, which would be a dashed black line with small dashes for highway=footway,bridleway,cycleway or path, and large dashes for highway=track. (highway=path is probably more correct for paths in my view, but less used in practice, so my Mapnik rules will treat footway, bridleway, cycleway and path equivalently). Overlaid on this would be a separate, transparent layer, for the actual rights, as opposed to the physical surface, which would use the designation tag to determine what actual legal right of way it is, and display public footpaths, bridleways and byways in different colours. I also plan to use designation=permissive_footpath (a footpath with known or implied permissive rights) in addition to the legal rights of way, in order to show known permissive paths. Finally this top layer would include a colour code for tracks known to be private (access=private), probably red. Rights of way not physically evident on the ground could miss out the highway tag altogether, and just have designation=whatever. This way we get the physical condition shown on OS maps, but also much better indication of where you can actually go than the OS maps, which typically do not distinguish between permissive and private tracks, a huge disadvantage for route planning. You'll see more of this in practice once I've done a load of designation=XXX tagging in my neck of the woods (at present only paths I've surveyed in the past 6 weeks or so have it) which should make it to next Wednesday's planet. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Ed Loach wrote: > I'm beginning personally to think that > highway= were all a mistake and that > highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with > suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better > starting point I think even that is a bit too high level. You don't really need to specify whether it is a path, road, etc - all we should really care about is what sort of traffic can use it (i.e. "motorcar=yes|no|designated", etc.) From this you can easilly work out what *sort* of way it is (i.e. if it allows pedestrians and no one else, clearly it is a footway; if it allows cars then it is a road, etc). Any extra attributes are a bonus - width, surface, classification (e.g. for roads this might be "motorway", "primary", "secondary", etc.). Similarly, things like whether the road is in a residential area should be an extra attribute, not a fundamental classification of the way. However, mistake or not, we have what we have and making fundamental changes doesn't seem especially likely (I have in the past made suggestions regarding the fundamental data structure and have been met with nothing but sarcastic replies and put-downs - I find it quite depressing that no one seems interested in even thinking about any revolutionary changes instead of just continuing down a potentially dead-end route. See my brain-dump on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Steve_Hill) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
Ed Loach wrote: > Indeed you can have designated public footpaths that pass through > urban areas Like this one? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.23497&mlon=-0.59355&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
I'm beginning personally to think that highway= were all a mistake and that highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better starting point - there would certainly be fewer debates where things are currently less than clear. A wiki page I was looking at last night even mentions highway=byway which I can't find anywhere else in the wiki (and it says it implies motorcar=no for restricted byway, though the one I drove last night only said that at the end I came out of and not where I entered, so perhaps that should be motorcar=destination or something, but that's a different discussion). However, I don't believe we should differentiate urban footpaths(etc) from rural ones other than my means of the surface, width and designation tags, whether you use =path or =footwa/etc. Indeed you can have designated public footpaths that pass through urban areas, so really the only likely difference between rural and urban that I can see are where they are (so are they in a landuse=residential area, for example) and their physical properties (such as surface and width). Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
I'd prefer comments on the specific point (path vs footway for rural footpaths). I wasn't trying to make a precise proposal re the cycleway/track/unclassified distinction. I'd probably say that if the extra width was on something that excluded motor-vehs then it remains a "cycleway", but if it allowed motor-vehs it was "unclassified". Richard On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Williams < gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- > > boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl > > Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02 > > To: Richard Mann > > Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country > > footpaths > > > > Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is > > signed > > as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard > > that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway, > > which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default). > > > > And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed > > cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are > > wider > > than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a > > specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for > > cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway. > > > > It will come as no surprise to you that I completely disagree with > your > > approach to this whole subject. > > Indeed. Current guidance (though admittedly not always heeded) in the UK > is for a minimum of 2.5m wide for a cycleway. So only applying > highway=cycleway to ways less than 2m wide would mean that we can't add > any new cycleways that follow the guidance. > > Gregory > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote: > In highway engineering terms in the UK a "footway" is always alongside a > road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway. This is a slightly separate issue, but not marking them is a bit of a problem in some cases because we end up with things like foot bridges which are unconnected at both ends because there is no separate footway marked along the side of the road. I'm not really going to comment on what the "best practice" is for this case at the moment, just pointing out that it can be a problem. > I just don't see the distinction between a muddy metre wide path that > happens to run between houses from one that doesn't. And if it is > surfaced, we have a means to say so already. I've got to agree with this. I missed the discussion when the highway=path tag was agreed, but I have never really seen the need for it. If it is something I can walk along then it's a footway - I don't much care whether it is in an urban area or on the top of a cliff in the middle of nowhere, none of that changes what I can do on the way (i.e. walk). > Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is signed > as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard > that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway, > which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default). Also, there's a legal distinction between cycleways and footways to think about - it is illegal to cycle on a footway, and similarly if you were walking on a designated cycleway I suspect the courts might not look at you favourably if you were hit by a bike (especially if there's a perfectly good footway following a similar route). So marking up a way as a cycleway just because it _looks_ suitable for bikes is not a sensible move. In some cases a track is both a footway and a cycleway (often with a line down the middle to separate the cyclists and pedestrians). I'm not sure of the best way to tag this - do we tag it as a footway with cyclists allowed, a cycleway with pedestrians allowed, mark up 2 independent ways next to eachother, or something completely different? (it is a good argument for not using the single "highway" tag to describe the legal properties of a way, such as "footway" or "cycleway", where it may actually be both). > And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed > cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are wider > than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a > specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for > cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway. And indeed, people can already use the "width" tag to signify how wide the cycleway is - what it was historically used for is not important for most renderings of the map. There may be merrit in marking up the historical use through other tags, e.g. something like "highway=cycleway, historically:railway=rail" or similar for a disused railway line that is now a designated cycleway, but that is another discussion - I don't believe what an object used to be should have any real bearing on the mainstream tags. Unless someone can explain to me a really good reason for using "path" instead of "footway", I really don't much feel like having to resurvey all the footways around here... - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
> -Original Message- > From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- > boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl > Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02 > To: Richard Mann > Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country > footpaths > > Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is > signed > as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard > that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway, > which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default). > > And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed > cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are > wider > than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a > specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for > cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway. > > It will come as no surprise to you that I completely disagree with your > approach to this whole subject. Indeed. Current guidance (though admittedly not always heeded) in the UK is for a minimum of 2.5m wide for a cycleway. So only applying highway=cycleway to ways less than 2m wide would mean that we can't add any new cycleways that follow the guidance. Gregory ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
On 03/04/2009 12:42, Richard Mann wrote: > *** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether > urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively *** Given we already have a separate tag for surface, I don't see the distinction. In highway engineering terms in the UK a "footway" is always alongside a road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway. So our use of this rather specialised word "footway" doesn't correspond to the only other use of it. I just don't see the distinction between a muddy metre wide path that happens to run between houses from one that doesn't. And if it is surfaced, we have a means to say so already. > To summarise & clarify, I'm getting towards: > highway=path for unmade/part-made pedestrian ways, typically in > rural/woodland settings, or urban shortcuts (implies foot=yes, rest=no) > highway=footway for well-made pedestrian ways, typically in urban > settings, though sometimes in popular rural/woodland settings (implies > foot=yes, rest=no) > highway=bridleway for (typically unmade) ways clearly identifiable as > for use by horses as well as pedestrians, typically in a rural/woodland > setting (implies foot=yes, horse=yes, rest=no) > highway=cycleway for ways that have been engineered for "normal" cycles, > in both rural and urban settings, but which are less than 2m wide > (implies foot=yes, bicycle=yes, rest=no; horse=yes to be added where > appropriate) > highway=track/unclassified/etc for ways that are at least 2m wide > AND > designation=footpath/bridleway/restricted_byway/byway/permissive_footpath/permissive_bridleway > > to record right of way in England & Wales (probably with a default > assumption that highway=path implies designation=footpath and > highway=bridleway implies designation=bridleway unless tagged otherwise) Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is signed as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway, which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default). And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are wider than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway. It will come as no surprise to you that I completely disagree with your approach to this whole subject. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country footpaths
Folks, Having some time on my hands at the moment, I'm trying to get my head round some of the inconsistencies/duplications/gaps in the usage of the highway key. Having looked at the recent widescale adoption of "highway=path" in Germany it is clearly fulfilling a need. I'm coming to the view that this is a need that we (England and Wales) didn't know existed, because we're used to red dotted lines for country footpaths, and have fallen into using the same tag for rural and urban footpaths, even though they are generally physically quite different. We've therefore lost some of the physical information you get on OS maps, where old hands know to prefer footpaths that follow tracks etc. In Germany, "highway=path" is being used for paths outside built-up areas that aren't wide enough to be "highway=track", but aren't established enough to be classified as footway, cycleway or bridleway. They are probably also reacting to "footway (fussweg)" being an established term for an urban footpath, and not liguistically appropriate to a rural footpath. Footway is also a defined term in English law, but it's mostly used by highways professionals, and covers urban and rural footpaths and pavements. "highway=path" is also sometimes being used in Germany with bicycle=designated or foot=designated, but this isn't as common. Given a choice between the English system (of using footway in both urban and rural contexts) or the German system (of distinguishing), I think I'm coming to the conclusion that the German system gives a clearer and more accurate coding of the geography, and gives renderers a better basis for making maps. I also think that developing a consensus on how "path" should be used is sensible, to avoid it being used for every type of path, which is currently a danger. There is obviously an issue that we in England and Wales have been merrily tagging rural footpaths as footways for a while. If we move to a situation where path is preferred for most of these, then that's quite a lot of retagging. But having them as highway=footway isn't so terribly wrong in the meantime, so I'd be happy for a slow transition, if the eventual outcome was a clearer and more internationally-adoptable/understandable system. *** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively *** To summarise & clarify, I'm getting towards: highway=path for unmade/part-made pedestrian ways, typically in rural/woodland settings, or urban shortcuts (implies foot=yes, rest=no) highway=footway for well-made pedestrian ways, typically in urban settings, though sometimes in popular rural/woodland settings (implies foot=yes, rest=no) highway=bridleway for (typically unmade) ways clearly identifiable as for use by horses as well as pedestrians, typically in a rural/woodland setting (implies foot=yes, horse=yes, rest=no) highway=cycleway for ways that have been engineered for "normal" cycles, in both rural and urban settings, but which are less than 2m wide (implies foot=yes, bicycle=yes, rest=no; horse=yes to be added where appropriate) highway=track/unclassified/etc for ways that are at least 2m wide AND designation=footpath/bridleway/restricted_byway/byway/permissive_footpath/permissive_bridleway to record right of way in England & Wales (probably with a default assumption that highway=path implies designation=footpath and highway=bridleway implies designation=bridleway unless tagged otherwise) Richard (West Oxford) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
