>> Hello Andy,
>>
>>>Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban
sprawl.
>>>These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when
housing
>>>development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.
>>
>> True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show
> Hello Andy,
>
>>Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl.
>>These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing
>>development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.
>
> True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most p
just wondering: are any of the highway=footpath tags still in OSM
database? I always used to use those for "legal rights-of-way
footpaths with a footpath sign" until it became OSM-standard that
highway=footway should be used for all paths regardless of legal
status.
__
>It's a bit more sophisticated than that; see the URL for what I consider
a right of way. Note that I tried a >version with highway=footway,foot=yes
added in, and got the same sort of pattern.
>Nick
In fact, it's possible to add highway=footway, foot=yes to the definition
of a right of way by
Hello Andy,
>Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl.
>These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing
>development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.
True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people
in
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>Sent: 23 October 2009 10:43 AM
>To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map
>
>Hello everyone,
>
>Following on from the unintentional rights-of-way coverage map generated
>by zooming out from the OSM/Fir
Hello everyone,
Following on from the unintentional rights-of-way coverage map generated
by zooming out from the OSM/First Edition mashup that I mentioned the
other day, I've now done a script to generate a real one.
It's available at
http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/statsmap.php
That
7 matches
Mail list logo
