Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Kevin Peat wrote: The "Converted kml file for Devon" on this page: http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DN/ Great, thanks. Each path has a name, e.g.: DN Seaton Footpath 2 It would help if you gave the names of some of the paths you have problems with. Sorry, I should have asked this earlier. -- Barry Cornelius http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On 23 Jan 2013 21:42, "Barry Cornelius" wrote: > > Which kml file are you referring to? > > Please give me a URL so that I can download the kml and check... The "Converted kml file for Devon" on this page: http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DN/ Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Kevin Peat wrote: I also noticed that the Devon data (using the kml from your site in josm) appears to be consistently offset a few metres south of where it should be. Not a big deal just FYI really. Which kml file are you referring to? Please give me a URL so that I can download the kml and check. Thanks. -- Barry Cornelius http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
I'm not sure if anyone will be able to help bring some degree of firmness to this, but it is my belief that roads that are on the Local Authority list of streets appear with a solid border in OS StreetView map. So for your example: http://os.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=15&lat=50.43928&lon=-3.67146&layers=B0 Whereas rights of way either do not appear at all, or part appear as a grey road with no border (for access to some building). For example in the following link you see a road from Keepers Cottage to Grotto Lodge. I looked this up and it is a right of way "Byway Open to All Traffic". It runs beyond Grotto Lodge, East past Copse, before turning south round Rabbit Warren! You can make out which way the BOAT goes by the missing section in the woods. http://os.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=16&lat=51.31394&lon=-1.37819&layers=B0 == Question == How to indicate this by a tag so that routers are happy yet we still know it is a "road". I would start with "operator=" to capture that it is on the list of streets (perhaps still worth checking). Highway unclassified vs highway track is a difficult one - I'm happy to sit back and hear any arguments from either camp. Either way, "lane=1" is probably a must. And ideally we need a "not really recommended" / "avoid unless the alternatives are just as bad / far out of the way" type tag. As far as I know we don't have one. :-( Rob On 23 January 2013 20:28, Kevin Peat wrote: > > On 23 Jan 2013 19:38, "Rob Nickerson" wrote > > > > Ideas welcome (I've not seen enough examples to get an understanding of > what these roads are actually like on the ground - photos ... > > This is one: > > http://m.google.co.uk/u/m/R9HAqI > > The ones I have surveyed are glorified farm tracks with mostly gravel or > broken concrete surfaces, currently tagged as highway=track which seems > appropriate given the surface. > > Kevin > > > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On 23 Jan 2013 19:38, "Rob Nickerson" wrote > > Ideas welcome (I've not seen enough examples to get an understanding of what these roads are actually like on the ground - photos ... This is one: http://m.google.co.uk/u/m/R9HAqI The ones I have surveyed are glorified farm tracks with mostly gravel or broken concrete surfaces, currently tagged as highway=track which seems appropriate given the surface. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
No extra "designation" tag is needed in my opinion. If they are on the authorities list of streets, then they are legally exactly the same as any other road. Therefore highway=unclassified would be fine. The issue arises when they are not well maintained, narrow, or not suitable for some larger vehicles. We really need some way of identifying this in a tag so that routing engines can suggest an alternative route. I guess some people may use highway=track to make a distinction, but I'm not convinced this is right... Ideas welcome (I've not seen enough examples to get an understanding of what these roads are actually like on the ground - photos welcome too) Rob On 23 January 2013 19:17, Kevin Peat wrote: > > On 23 Jan 2013 18:58, "Rob Nickerson" wrote: > > > > > ... > > Thanks for that. Any thoughts on whether they should be specifically > tagged in OSM? > > Kevin > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On 23 Jan 2013 18:58, "Rob Nickerson" wrote: > > ... Thanks for that. Any thoughts on whether they should be specifically tagged in OSM? Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
In regards to "Other roads with public access" (ORPA) - this is a term that the Ordnance Survey have used, in other places they are called "Unclassified County Road". Most often they are legally the same as a normal road (and should therefore appear in the Local Authorities list if streets, in which case they do not need to appear in the Definitive Map / Definitive Statement). If you are interested in following it up it may be worth asking your local authority if it appears in their list of streets. If not you could ask why not. Basically we want all routes to exist in either the list of streets or the Definitive Map/Statement by 2026. For the misalignment: this may be due to an incorrect projection being used (similar as to what happened with the first release of OS OpenData). I'll check it when I get a spare moment. Rob On 23 January 2013 17:50, Kevin Peat wrote: > Hi Barry, > > On 23 Jan 2013 16:07, "Barry Cornelius" > wrote: > > > > ... > > Thanks for your work on this. > > I've been looking at the Devon data and have integrated a small amount of > it local to me. There are a whole bunch of unsurfaced green lanes around > here with public access that are not in the dataset. They are often marked > on OS Explorer as "Other routes with public access". Any idea why they are > not included and should there be a legal designation for those? > > I also noticed that the Devon data (using the kml from your site in josm) > appears to be consistently offset a few metres south of where it should be. > Not a big deal just FYI really. > > Kevin (user:devonshire) > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
Hi Barry, On 23 Jan 2013 16:07, "Barry Cornelius" wrote: > > ... Thanks for your work on this. I've been looking at the Devon data and have integrated a small amount of it local to me. There are a whole bunch of unsurfaced green lanes around here with public access that are not in the dataset. They are often marked on OS Explorer as "Other routes with public access". Any idea why they are not included and should there be a legal designation for those? I also noticed that the Devon data (using the kml from your site in josm) appears to be consistently offset a few metres south of where it should be. Not a big deal just FYI really. Kevin (user:devonshire) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Rob Nickerson wrote: Barry, Local government regions in England can be very confusing. For public rights of way the responsibility of legally collating these on the Definitive Map and Statement lies with those regions that are “surveying authorities”. This is the same as the 152 (151 if you exclude the “City of London”) Local Authorities listed in the Principal Authorities table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_England ... A belated thank you for that message which helped me a lot. I've now added a section for Wales to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils that gives some basic information. I hope it's OK. -- Barry Cornelius http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
