[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] 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

[Adam Snape]

Sorry,

I mean to say we need a way to tag this 'name format' (official_name
perhaps? Or prow_name...)

Kind regards,

Adam

On 3 July 2018 at 09:09, Adam Snape  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references
> like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg.
> Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something
> we could consistently do nationally.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
> On 2 July 2018 at 23:44, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert  wrote:
>> > 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.)
>>
>> On rowmaps, there's a standardised format whereby the parish
>> name/number goes in one field and the path number goes in another. The
>> display then joins them back together again with a space. Different
>> counties use different formats for combining the numbers, possibly
>> using a slash of dash between them, or possibly including the parish
>> name rather than a parish number. It's also possible that the format
>> used in the GIS data is not the actual legal format used in the
>> Definitive Map and Statement, i.e. the parish numbers might just be an
>> internal convenience. The interpretation of the rowmaps data therefore
>> needs a bit of care.
>>
>> In the case of Cumbria, I've just made an FOI/EIR request for a list
>> of the parish names corresponding to the numbers, and asked whether
>> the numbers are used in the Definitive Statement. See
>> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_5
>>
>> 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 - updates

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references
like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg.
Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something
we could consistently do nationally.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 2 July 2018 at 23:44, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert  wrote:
> > 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.)
>
> On rowmaps, there's a standardised format whereby the parish
> name/number goes in one field and the path number goes in another. The
> display then joins them back together again with a space. Different
> counties use different formats for combining the numbers, possibly
> using a slash of dash between them, or possibly including the parish
> name rather than a parish number. It's also possible that the format
> used in the GIS data is not the actual legal format used in the
> Definitive Map and Statement, i.e. the parish numbers might just be an
> internal convenience. The interpretation of the rowmaps data therefore
> needs a bit of care.
>
> In the case of Cumbria, I've just made an FOI/EIR request for a list
> of the parish names corresponding to the numbers, and asked whether
> the numbers are used in the Definitive Statement. See
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_5
>
> 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 - updates

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert  wrote:
> 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.)

On rowmaps, there's a standardised format whereby the parish
name/number goes in one field and the path number goes in another. The
display then joins them back together again with a space. Different
counties use different formats for combining the numbers, possibly
using a slash of dash between them, or possibly including the parish
name rather than a parish number. It's also possible that the format
used in the GIS data is not the actual legal format used in the
Definitive Map and Statement, i.e. the parish numbers might just be an
internal convenience. The interpretation of the rowmaps data therefore
needs a bit of care.

In the case of Cumbria, I've just made an FOI/EIR request for a list
of the parish names corresponding to the numbers, and asked whether
the numbers are used in the Definitive Statement. See
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_5

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

[Roger Calvert]

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 
*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



--


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] MapThePaths - updates

[Roger Calvert]

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] MapThePaths - updates

[Nick Whitelegg]

... sorry, forgot URL: 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 | W: 
solent.ac.uk

Disclaimer
___
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 | W: 
solent.ac.uk

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