[Talk-GB] Problematical rural edits across England
I'm wondering what is the best approach to take with a relatively recent contributor to OpenStreetMap. Since joining they've made a large number of edits geographically spread across England. Unfortunately, most of these edits seem at odds with previous on-the-ground surveys. Examples of problems include include: (I'll not include actual examples on a public mailing list at this stage) o removing previously on-the-ground surveyed tags such as "surface", "designation" (especially where it might preclude motor vehicle access), and changes of "highway=bridleway" to "highway=track" (presumably to encourage vehicle access). o adding "designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic" where it either isn't signed on the ground or is signed as something else (e.g. bridleway) o merging ways together with differing tags resulting in e.g. "surface=x;y;x" and "layer=1" from a merged bridge. o adding data with incompatible tags such as "designation = byway_open_to_all_traffic", "source = NPE" I've been in contact with the mapper concerned about these problems several times over the past month, trying to be friendly and helpful, as would only be fair to a new mapper. Answers I received about the "designation" tagging included things like "included on Notts CC's definitive map as a byway" and "from a Definitive map modification order from 2006" (in both cases I asked about verifiability and licence suitability but received no further reply). I've not received a reply about the bridleway-to-track changes, and problematical edits are still being made. My concern about the designation changes is obviously that they've been copied from another source that might not be licence-compatible. The removal of existing tags is a different problem, that of deleting people's previous hard work (where ways have been merged and subsequently re-edited it's not straightforward just to add back previous tags). What would people recommend as the next step? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group would suggest "try and sort it out within the community first, then raise it with the DWG" which makes sense. My messages haven't had any noticeable affect, but perhaps more voices would? Any other suggestions? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Unsual highway= values
Hi there, maybe you're interested inThe file below shows ways with an unusual highway= value. This could be highway=byway_open_to_all_traffic, highway=footway;track or highway=serviec...things like that...usually not detected by other QA tools. "Unsual" is defined here as a highway=value combination that does add up to 15km in total for the GB country Geofrabrik file. This does not mean that it is wrong but some things are very obvious. The numbers below the tag value are the way IDs, ready to copy and use in JOSM with File->Download Object http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12420490/results_uk.txt If you find this useful and want an update, please let me know. Kind regards Thomas -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Unsual-highway-values-tp5668485p5668485.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Using UK v GB for uk speed limit tags
Just in the process of adding some speed limits and went to the wiki to clarify tagging. UK speed limits commonly had a source:maxspeed tag, which contained UK, eg source:maxspeed=UK:motorway. Wiki page was recently changed and advised using GB eg source:maxspeed=GB:motorway The change notes correctly pointed out that GB was the correct international code for the UK. But with so many speed limit tags now using UK is it helpful to change? Personally not bothered whether UK or GB, but in the area I'm mapping I'd like all my tags to be the same. Does anyone else have views on this? (I've memories of a few arguing that we dont need UK/GB tags when the data is georeferenced but I'm not really interested in that right now) Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Permissive paths and "uncrecorded rights of way"
On 26 April 2012 16:28, cotswolds mapper wrote: > It's been bothering me for a while that there is a gap in tagging guidelines > relating to well-used (and possibly long-standing) paths that are not > official rights of way. Certainly a newcomer reading the guidelines could > get the impression that everything is one of RoW, permissive path or > unknown, and I don't think that is true. I would suggest that we reserve designation=public_footpath etc for ways where we have clear evidence that they are officially designated as one of the four classes of Public Right of Way. There is also designation=permissive_footpath and designation=permissive_bridleway (quite a few uses according to taginfo), but I think the idea for these was to reserve them for routes for ways that are explicitly signed as such. For other routes where you believe the access to be permissive there is access=permissive, foot=permissive, etc. I'd take this to include routes like your example in 1 which appear to allow access, and while not being an officially confirmed right of way, even if they would be very likely to be if someone challenged it. I'm not sure about a specific tag for situations like this -- not least because it would be a rather subjective decision as to when to apply it to a way. For your example 2, do you know that it's not a public highway? You should be able to check with the County Council, to see if it appears on their list of streets maintained at the public expense. If it is, then I'd suggest using designation=unclassified_highway (which has a few uses according to taginfo) to record this on OSM. If not, it would be interesting to find out what the Council thinks its status is. Maybe there's a pending application to have it recorded as a Right of Way. In response to a later comment: The "ORPA" label is something invented by Ordnance Survey for public highways that may not appear as such on the ground. Unlike the four classes of public right or way, there's no definitive rule for these -- the label could legitimately be applied to any public highway. So I wouldn't be surprised if OS haven't been particularly consistent in when/where to include the symbol. I'd prefer we avoided "ORPA" in OSM as it looks too much like we're copying OS, and it may encourage mappers to take the status from OS maps when they shouldn't. For they few near where I live, I checked with the Council and found that they were actually public highways. > Two examples from the area I'm working in (Cotswolds between > Stroud/Cirencester/Birdlip). > > 1) There is a path through a wood I have been using on and off for nearly > twenty years. It's clearly well used, mainly by dog walkers. There are no > signs indicating the wood is private, and they are using it as of right. If > someone tried to close it, I'm pretty sure it could be proved that a right > of way exists. > > 2) In several villages (e.g. Eastcombe) I have found public 'ways' which are > not official RoWs: > On OS 1:25k maps (both historic and modern) they are shown as white roads. > They feel like public rather than private land, with dry stone walls on both > sides, and no stiles or gates or restrictions. > 'Proper' rights of way branch off them. > They are maintained at public expense (parish council workman cuts the grass > twice a year, and sometimes there's a tarmac strip), and are well used > (because the roads are narrow with no pavement). > I would expect them to be ORPAs, but mostly they are not, and I have found > too many for it to be an OS transcription error. > > In both cases, 'permissive' is completely inappropriate because people have > used these ways as of right for many years, but they are not status unknown. > > More generally, I have read that there are thousands of miles of > 'lost/unrecorded' RoW in... (England? UK? ... can't remember), and OSM > mappers should be finding some of these. While all sorts of tags are > possible for the experienced, the novice is likely to restrict themselves to > wiki options. > > At the moment, the wiki reads to me as if 'permissive' is the fall through > option once you have established that a way is not a RoW. IMO mappers > should be discouraged from thinking like that and only record a way as > 'permissive' if there is clear evidence that it is not used as of right. > (And also be open to the idea that permissive signs may be wrong, but that's > for another thread...) > > I think there then needs to be a tag (or two) for other ways that are not > RoW, but not clearly permissive. For my first example, maybe 'traditional' > or 'informal' would do. > > For my second example, which seems to me an obvious example of something > falling through the crack between the council road's department and RoW > department, I would be inclined to use 'de facto RoW', because it's hard to > imagine anyone disputing the use, but there would need to be a high standard > of evidence on the ground to use that term. > > Rob > > __
Re: [Talk-GB] Permissive paths and "uncrecorded rights of way"
I have used "suspected=orpa" for one or two of these in Hampshire. By doing this you're not stating it's a right of way, but on the other hand you are adding additional information which means it's *more likely to be* a right of way than a random path through private land used as an informal shortcut - due to, as you say, the general "look" of it. Maybe "orpa" isn't the right term, maybe "suspected=public" or "suspected=row" or something. Nick -Graham Jones wrote: - To: cotswolds mapper From: Graham Jones Date: 26/04/2012 06:13PM Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Permissive paths and "uncrecorded rights of way" Hi, If there is a path on the ground but nothing to say it is a public footpath etc, I just tag it as highway=path with no designation. Graham On 26 Apr 2012 16:29, "cotswolds mapper" wrote: [New here (to OSM, not to mapping), so I'm not sure if I'm making this point in the right way or the right place. It's effectively a comment on the UK wiki changes, but I can't see how to reply to that thread.] It's been bothering me for a while that there is a gap in tagging guidelines relating to well-used (and possibly long-standing) paths that are not official rights of way. Certainly a newcomer reading the guidelines could get the impression that everything is one of RoW, permissive path or unknown, and I don't think that is true. Two examples from the area I'm working in (Cotswolds between Stroud/Cirencester/Birdlip). 1) There is a path through a wood I have been using on and off for nearly twenty years. It's clearly well used, mainly by dog walkers. There are no signs indicating the wood is private, and they are using it as of right. If someone tried to close it, I'm pretty sure it could be proved that a right of way exists. 2) In several villages (e.g. Eastcombe) I have found public 'ways' which are not official RoWs: On OS 1:25k maps (both historic and modern) they are shown as white roads. They feel like public rather than private land, with dry stone walls on both sides, and no stiles or gates or restrictions. 'Proper' rights of way branch off them. They are maintained at public expense (parish council workman cuts the grass twice a year, and sometimes there's a tarmac strip), and are well used (because the roads are narrow with no pavement). I would expect them to be ORPAs, but mostly they are not, and I have found too many for it to be an OS transcription error. In both cases, 'permissive' is completely inappropriate because people have used these ways as of right for many years, but they are not status unknown. More generally, I have read that there are thousands of miles of 'lost/unrecorded' RoW in... (England? UK? ... can't remember), and OSM mappers should be finding some of these. While all sorts of tags are possible for the experienced, the novice is likely to restrict themselves to wiki options. At the moment, the wiki reads to me as if 'permissive' is the fall through option once you have established that a way is not a RoW. IMO mappers should be discouraged from thinking like that and only record a way as 'permissive' if there is clear evidence that it is not used as of right. (And also be open to the idea that permissive signs may be wrong, but that's for another thread...) I think there then needs to be a tag (or two) for other ways that are not RoW, but not clearly permissive. For my first example, maybe 'traditional' or 'informal' would do. For my second example, which seems to me an obvious example of something falling through the crack between the council road's department and RoW department, I would be inclined to use 'de facto RoW', because it's hard to imagine anyone disputing the use, but there would need to be a high standard of evidence on the ground to use that term. Rob ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Permissive paths and "uncrecorded rights of way"
Hi, If there is a path on the ground but nothing to say it is a public footpath etc, I just tag it as highway=path with no designation. Graham On 26 Apr 2012 16:29, "cotswolds mapper" wrote: [New here (to OSM, not to mapping), so I'm not sure if I'm making this point in the right way or the right place. It's effectively a comment on the UK wiki changes, but I can't see how to reply to that thread.] It's been bothering me for a while that there is a gap in tagging guidelines relating to well-used (and possibly long-standing) paths that are not official rights of way. Certainly a newcomer reading the guidelines could get the impression that everything is one of RoW, permissive path or unknown, and I don't think that is true. Two examples from the area I'm working in (Cotswolds between Stroud/Cirencester/Birdlip). 1) There is a path through a wood I have been using on and off for nearly twenty years. It's clearly well used, mainly by dog walkers. There are no signs indicating the wood is private, and they are using it as of right. If someone tried to close it, I'm pretty sure it could be proved that a right of way exists. 2) In several villages (e.g. Eastcombe) I have found public 'ways' which are not official RoWs: On OS 1:25k maps (both historic and modern) they are shown as white roads. They feel like public rather than private land, with dry stone walls on both sides, and no stiles or gates or restrictions. 'Proper' rights of way branch off them. They are maintained at public expense (parish council workman cuts the grass twice a year, and sometimes there's a tarmac strip), and are well used (because the roads are narrow with no pavement). I would expect them to be ORPAs, but mostly they are not, and I have found too many for it to be an OS transcription error. In both cases, 'permissive' is completely inappropriate because people have used these ways as of right for many years, but they are not status unknown. More generally, I have read that there are thousands of miles of 'lost/unrecorded' RoW in... (England? UK? ... can't remember), and OSM mappers should be finding some of these. While all sorts of tags are possible for the experienced, the novice is likely to restrict themselves to wiki options. At the moment, the wiki reads to me as if 'permissive' is the fall through option once you have established that a way is not a RoW. IMO mappers should be discouraged from thinking like that and only record a way as 'permissive' if there is clear evidence that it is not used as of right. (And also be open to the idea that permissive signs may be wrong, but that's for another thread...) I think there then needs to be a tag (or two) for other ways that are not RoW, but not clearly permissive. For my first example, maybe 'traditional' or 'informal' would do. For my second example, which seems to me an obvious example of something falling through the crack between the council road's department and RoW department, I would be inclined to use 'de facto RoW', because it's hard to imagine anyone disputing the use, but there would need to be a high standard of evidence on the ground to use that term. Rob ___ 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
[Talk-GB] Permissive paths and "uncrecorded rights of way"
[New here (to OSM, not to mapping), so I'm not sure if I'm making this point in the right way or the right place. It's effectively a comment on the UK wiki changes, but I can't see how to reply to that thread.] It's been bothering me for a while that there is a gap in tagging guidelines relating to well-used (and possibly long-standing) paths that are not official rights of way. Certainly a newcomer reading the guidelines could get the impression that everything is one of RoW, permissive path or unknown, and I don't think that is true. Two examples from the area I'm working in (Cotswolds between Stroud/Cirencester/Birdlip). 1) There is a path through a wood I have been using on and off for nearly twenty years. It's clearly well used, mainly by dog walkers. There are no signs indicating the wood is private, and they are using it as of right. If someone tried to close it, I'm pretty sure it could be proved that a right of way exists. 2) In several villages (e.g. Eastcombe) I have found public 'ways' which are not official RoWs: On OS 1:25k maps (both historic and modern) they are shown as white roads. They feel like public rather than private land, with dry stone walls on both sides, and no stiles or gates or restrictions. 'Proper' rights of way branch off them. They are maintained at public expense (parish council workman cuts the grass twice a year, and sometimes there's a tarmac strip), and are well used (because the roads are narrow with no pavement). I would expect them to be ORPAs, but mostly they are not, and I have found too many for it to be an OS transcription error. In both cases, 'permissive' is completely inappropriate because people have used these ways as of right for many years, but they are not status unknown. More generally, I have read that there are thousands of miles of 'lost/unrecorded' RoW in... (England? UK? ... can't remember), and OSM mappers should be finding some of these. While all sorts of tags are possible for the experienced, the novice is likely to restrict themselves to wiki options. At the moment, the wiki reads to me as if 'permissive' is the fall through option once you have established that a way is not a RoW. IMO mappers should be discouraged from thinking like that and only record a way as 'permissive' if there is clear evidence that it is not used as of right. (And also be open to the idea that permissive signs may be wrong, but that's for another thread...) I think there then needs to be a tag (or two) for other ways that are not RoW, but not clearly permissive. For my first example, maybe 'traditional' or 'informal' would do. For my second example, which seems to me an obvious example of something falling through the crack between the council road's department and RoW department, I would be inclined to use 'de facto RoW', because it's hard to imagine anyone disputing the use, but there would need to be a high standard of evidence on the ground to use that term. Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
