Re: [Talk-GB] UK Mapping Priorities
On 24 June 2010 13:46, Ian Spencer wrote: > Andy Allan wrote on 24/06/2010 12:41: >> >> I just had a look at the UK Mapping Priorities page >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities >> >> and I noticed that Darlington has gone from unmapped to awesome over >> the last few months. Who wants to step up and take credit for such >> immense progress on what was the "UK's highest mapping priority"? >> >> In addition, I've recalculated some more and now we have no area with >> a score of more than 100, which is good news. Anyone fancy updating >> some more of the figures so we can see if anywhere else can be >> graduated off of the list? >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> > > It is a shame you can't easily look at the editing history to answer your > question as to who to credit. What would be quite helpful would be if it > were possible to exclude the large edits from the change history as at the > moment local edits are drowned out by global changes, often of no interest > to the UK, let alone the area being looked at. If I knew who to poke for a > fix, I would poke them. ito world's osm mapper (http://www.itoworld.com/static/openstreetmap.html) should be able to help you with that. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and footways
I've always used footways for urban, usually metalled, pedestrian routes and path for offroad routes outside of urban areas. If it has been constructed and pavement-like access restrictions are likely to be in force (ie, no bikes) I'd call it a footway. If it is a PROV over a field or a narrow track which you could squeeze a bike down but is more suited to walkers, I'd call it a path. I prefer the rendering of path to footway outside of urban areas in the mapnik layer, but where the map shows lots of built-up features the little red trails are easier to spot and follow. YMMV ;-) > a disagreement unresolved by the asinine anarchism that plagues our tagging? In the absence of a sensible definition of what the tags meant at the point at which they were introduced, this was inevitable. There are lots of pretty futile arguments on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path has some 'summaries'. You may as well please yourself; so long as the ways are tagged comprehensively (surface, access, foot= bicycle= etc etc) the highway tags can be automatically converted in the future in the event of consensus or a coup. On 24/06/2010 13:02, Tom Chance wrote: At the risk of starting a pointlessly long thread... Can anyone help me understand when to use highway=path and when to use highway=footway in the UK? If it's still a completely stupid disagreement then nevermind, I'll just carry on as I have for five years using highway=footway. The wiki says highway=path is for "non-specific" paths, whilst highway=footway is for "designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for pedestrians" based on the "primary or intended usage", but also allows that bicycle=yes can be used for a footpath designated mainly for pedestrians. That's clear as mud! Here are some urban examples I have in mind. I'm not sure what the "intended usage" was, though I have tried lying on the pavement and listening for whispered hints. - paths around parks where cycling isn't prohibited, and where it is - paths through graveyards - paths around housing estates and leading up to houses - un-signposted paths running across scrubby bits of open land - paths along riverbanks When I started mapping in 2005 we just had highway=footway, so I've always used that all over St Albans, Reading, London and holiday destinations. I added mode-specific restrictions if bikes and horses weren't allowed, and used cycleway where cyclists seem to have the ascendancy. Now I see Darlington has lots of highway=path usage and no highway=footway. This is cropping up in more and more places. So to repeat... is there an agreed usage, or is it still a disagreement unresolved by the asinine anarchism that plagues our tagging? Best, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ 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] Paths and footways
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Trevor Hook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Richard Mann > wrote: >> >> I use path for unmade paths in the country (or indistinct ones across >> parks), and footways for made up paths. >> >> Richard >> > > But that goes against the wiki advice... It's in line with the German-language wiki. I ration my attentions to the wiki to where I think it would add value. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and footways
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I use path for unmade paths in the country (or indistinct ones across > parks), and footways for made up paths. > > Richard > > But that goes against the wiki advice, highway=footway is for designated foot routes, any UK Public Footpath in the countryside would fall under that interpretation and yet more often than not they are just mud or grass paths, certainly once you are off the more popular tourist trails. However, an urban pedestrian cut through with a hard surfaced is often only legally recognised in the same way as a path at the side of the road, you aren't allow casually block it (for example, not allowed to park a car on it) but getting it diverting is trivial (e.g. for a new building project) because it's not protected in anyway. The problem is that in the UK, we use the 2 terms (or the equivalent phrases) the opposite way round to the rest of the world. Trevor ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and footways
I use path for unmade paths in the country (or indistinct ones across parks), and footways for made up paths. Richard On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Tom Chance wrote: > At the risk of starting a pointlessly long thread... > > Can anyone help me understand when to use highway=path and when to use > highway=footway in the UK? If it's still a completely stupid disagreement > then nevermind, I'll just carry on as I have for five years using > highway=footway. > > The wiki says highway=path is for "non-specific" paths, whilst > highway=footway is for "designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for > pedestrians" based on the "primary or intended usage", but also allows that > bicycle=yes can be used for a footpath designated mainly for pedestrians. > > That's clear as mud! > > Here are some urban examples I have in mind. I'm not sure what the "intended > usage" was, though I have tried lying on the pavement and listening for > whispered hints. > > - paths around parks where cycling isn't prohibited, and where it is > - paths through graveyards > - paths around housing estates and leading up to houses > - un-signposted paths running across scrubby bits of open land > - paths along riverbanks > > When I started mapping in 2005 we just had highway=footway, so I've always > used that all over St Albans, Reading, London and holiday destinations. I > added mode-specific restrictions if bikes and horses weren't allowed, and > used cycleway where cyclists seem to have the ascendancy. > > Now I see Darlington has lots of highway=path usage and no highway=footway. > This is cropping up in more and more places. > > So to repeat... is there an agreed usage, or is it still a disagreement > unresolved by the asinine anarchism that plagues our tagging? > > Best, > Tom > > > -- > http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance > > ___ > 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] Paths and footways
> (when to use footway or path) I use footway for surfaced paths and path for unsurfaced, unmaintained "mud" paths, typically in the country. I don't think there's a right answer to this though! For actual legal rights of way, many believe that the designation=[public_footpath|public_bridleway|byway|etc] is the favoured tag to use. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Mapping Priorities
Andy Allan wrote on 24/06/2010 12:41: I just had a look at the UK Mapping Priorities page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities and I noticed that Darlington has gone from unmapped to awesome over the last few months. Who wants to step up and take credit for such immense progress on what was the "UK's highest mapping priority"? In addition, I've recalculated some more and now we have no area with a score of more than 100, which is good news. Anyone fancy updating some more of the figures so we can see if anywhere else can be graduated off of the list? Cheers, Andy It is a shame you can't easily look at the editing history to answer your question as to who to credit. What would be quite helpful would be if it were possible to exclude the large edits from the change history as at the moment local edits are drowned out by global changes, often of no interest to the UK, let alone the area being looked at. If I knew who to poke for a fix, I would poke them. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Paths and footways
At the risk of starting a pointlessly long thread... Can anyone help me understand when to use highway=path and when to use highway=footway in the UK? If it's still a completely stupid disagreement then nevermind, I'll just carry on as I have for five years using highway=footway. The wiki says highway=path is for "non-specific" paths, whilst highway=footway is for "designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for pedestrians" based on the "primary or intended usage", but also allows that bicycle=yes can be used for a footpath designated mainly for pedestrians. That's clear as mud! Here are some urban examples I have in mind. I'm not sure what the "intended usage" was, though I have tried lying on the pavement and listening for whispered hints. - paths around parks where cycling isn't prohibited, and where it is - paths through graveyards - paths around housing estates and leading up to houses - un-signposted paths running across scrubby bits of open land - paths along riverbanks When I started mapping in 2005 we just had highway=footway, so I've always used that all over St Albans, Reading, London and holiday destinations. I added mode-specific restrictions if bikes and horses weren't allowed, and used cycleway where cyclists seem to have the ascendancy. Now I see Darlington has lots of highway=path usage and no highway=footway. This is cropping up in more and more places. So to repeat... is there an agreed usage, or is it still a disagreement unresolved by the asinine anarchism that plagues our tagging? Best, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Mapping Priorities
>I just had a look at the UK Mapping Priorities page >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities >and I noticed that Darlington has gone from unmapped to awesome over >the last few months. Who wants to step up and take credit for such >immense progress on what was the "UK's highest mapping priority"? >In addition, I've recalculated some more and now we have no area with >a score of more than 100, which is good news. Anyone fancy updating >some more of the figures so we can see if anywhere else can be >graduated off of the list? I think Andover can come off - anyone disagree? Just about all streets are done, following from the mapping party in May. Nick Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fwd: UK Mapping Priorities
On 24 June 2010 12:41, Andy Allan wrote: > I just had a look at the UK Mapping Priorities page > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities > > and I noticed that Darlington has gone from unmapped to awesome over > the last few months. Who wants to step up and take credit for such > immense progress on what was the "UK's highest mapping priority"? > > In addition, I've recalculated some more and now we have no area with > a score of more than 100, which is good news. Anyone fancy updating > some more of the figures so we can see if anywhere else can be > graduated off of the list? I've updated the following: Burnley/Nelson 87.2 -> 52.9 Carlisle 34.2 -> 34.2 Doncaster 31.2 -> 28.4 Dudley 75 -> 72.2 Poole 90.5 -> 90.5 Rotherham 34.5 -> 33.5 Stafford 35.4 -> 35.4 Stoke-on-Trent 31.6 -> 29.8 Tameside 89.3 -> 79.4 Telford 86.4 -> 23.8 Burnley/Nelson and Telford (the two really dramatic improvements) were both last updated in February, whereas some of the others were updated in May or earlier this month. Russ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK Mapping Priorities
I just had a look at the UK Mapping Priorities page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities and I noticed that Darlington has gone from unmapped to awesome over the last few months. Who wants to step up and take credit for such immense progress on what was the "UK's highest mapping priority"? In addition, I've recalculated some more and now we have no area with a score of more than 100, which is good news. Anyone fancy updating some more of the figures so we can see if anywhere else can be graduated off of the list? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
