Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

FWIW I have developed an app (OpenTrail) which provides offline maps for UK 
walkers (actually only England for now) showing ROWs in the same colour scheme 
as Freemap, using Mapsforge. The designation tag is used to render the footpaths

It's not necessarily slick enough to be an "official" OSM UK app but could be 
used as a basis to develop something (by myself if necessary if someone had a 
list of requirements)

It's available at

http://www.free-map.org.uk/common/opentrail.html

and source
https://github.com/nickw1/Freemap

(the 0.1 version is older but more stable)

The big PITA at the moment is the need to generate MAP files from OSM data 
which I have to do annually however I am working on modifying mapsforge to 
optionally use a geojson web service instead, allowing dynamic updates on 
demand.

Nick



From: Dudley Ibbett 
Sent: 18 August 2015 21:16
To: Rob Nickerson; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

Hi Rob

My approach is a pragmatic one.  I've come to the conclusion that it isn't 
reasonable to expect the "default" OSM website to render the "specialist" 
features that a UK walker would want.  The "gold standard" for UK walkers has 
to be the OS 1:25 so you would need contours, the British National Grid, public 
rights of way etc.To be honest, even with these additional features we lack 
the basic data in many parts of the UK to provide the coverage needed for an 
alternative to the 1:25.  It does however appear that where the data is 
reasonable we are being used.  The following provides an example of a definite 
map overlay.   
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/countryside/access/rights_of_way/rights_of_way_network/default.asp#14/53.1728/-1.6869
   Presumably this is a vector overlay of the type being referred to and 
perhaps this could be one way forward.  I guess we could do something like this 
using the designation tag.

I believe the UK public right of way access is rather unique in the way it 
gives access through farmland, farmyards, residential properties etc.   I find 
it quite bizarre at times that you can end up walking through someone's garden 
quite legally.  I does potentially provide some unique rendering issues in the 
UK as a consequence.

In the field, most walkers will actually use an offline map and wouldn't want 
to rely on internet access and the OSM website.  I guess OSMand with a suitably 
rendered UK vector map would be the alternative.

Kind Regards

Dudley






Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:25:35 +0100
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

Thanks Andy,

Fully aware of access land, undocumented rights of way and permissive paths. I 
just need to remember to be careful of what I write on this mailing list (but I 
was trying not to write an essay).

I'm surprised if this is just England and Wales as I would have thought some 
other country has some way of documenting paths in a legal context and as such 
this may be relevant for other countries, but the real question is: "would 
having some way to show the importance of particular paths/footways (just like 
roads have a classification) help, and if yes, how should we do this?"

So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render style 
which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this list to recent 
changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!

Rob

___ 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] Paths and Footways

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Rob

My approach is a pragmatic one.  I've come to the conclusion that it isn't 
reasonable to expect the "default" OSM website to render the "specialist" 
features that a UK walker would want.  The "gold standard" for UK walkers has 
to be the OS 1:25 so you would need contours, the British National Grid, public 
rights of way etc.To be honest, even with these additional features we lack 
the basic data in many parts of the UK to provide the coverage needed for an 
alternative to the 1:25.  It does however appear that where the data is 
reasonable we are being used.  The following provides an example of a definite 
map overlay.   
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/countryside/access/rights_of_way/rights_of_way_network/default.asp#14/53.1728/-1.6869
   Presumably this is a vector overlay of the type being referred to and 
perhaps this could be one way forward.  I guess we could do something like this 
using the designation tag. 

I believe the UK public right of way access is rather unique in the way it 
gives access through farmland, farmyards, residential properties etc.   I find 
it quite bizarre at times that you can end up walking through someone's garden 
quite legally.  I does potentially provide some unique rendering issues in the 
UK as a consequence.  

In the field, most walkers will actually use an offline map and wouldn't want 
to rely on internet access and the OSM website.  I guess OSMand with a suitably 
rendered UK vector map would be the alternative.

Kind Regards

Dudley





Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:25:35 +0100
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

Thanks Andy,

Fully aware of access land, undocumented rights of way and permissive paths. I 
just need to remember to be careful of what I write on this mailing list (but I 
was trying not to write an essay).

I'm surprised if this is just England and Wales as I would have thought some 
other country has some way of documenting paths in a legal context and as such 
this may be relevant for other countries, but the real question is: "would 
having some way to show the importance of particular paths/footways (just like 
roads have a classification) help, and if yes, how should we do this?"

So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render style 
which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this list to recent 
changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!

Rob


___
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] Paths and Footways

[Lester Caine]

On 18/08/15 09:46, Dan S wrote:
> I'm so fed up of the carping over the default map render (OSM-Carto).
> It's clearly a "contested resource" for our community. Was there ever
> much discussion about creating transparent overlays (e.g. a hiking
> overlay) on top of a minimal baselayer, so that we can "disaggregate"
> the thing and make it less of a focus for squabbles? I don't remember
> seeing discussion of overlays, but it would seem a good way for
> everyone to access as many or as few features as they wanted.

A base layer with contour information in one form or another has an
attraction, and overlay that with the information you need via vector
tile tools is becoming more practical? Certainly adding political and
other borders would be easier via that route, and may be more usable.

That the UK needs a local default in much the same way that France and
Germany have already gone is I think a given. What I am still trying to
work around is the easiest way of managing some areas of my own
rendering for which the accurate footpath detail is important. But while
the discussion here is on independent paths, my own interest is still
something I've covered before with adding safe footpath routes in
parallel with the road structure. Folding these down into simpler
rendering at larger scale is as much a macro/micro mapping problem, but
showing routes for walkers around here IS something that needs care. To
avoid what are - while physically accessible - less than safe walking
routes. There are safe and accessible footpaths bypassing the major
trunk roads, but currently the trunk routes - which have no footpaths
are still provided by the routing software :(

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/08/2015 09:48, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 18 August 2015 at 10:20, Andy Townsend  wrote:

In the
immediately previous message you said:

"So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render style
which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this list to
recent changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!"

I didn't write that (or anything you address in the rest of your
message) - I am not Rob Nickerson.


My apologies - it was Rob that I was asking "what are you suggesting", 
not you.  You did however say 'our main criterium for the recent changes 
is "readability", and that definitely includes being able to use the map 
for navigation.'.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 18 August 2015 at 10:20, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> On 18/08/2015 07:43, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>
> On 18 Aug 2015 03:56, "Andy Townsend"  wrote:
>> There's no interest to do this in the OSM "standard" style because it is
>> abundantly clear that any new attempts at changes that make rural navigation
>> possible* in OSM-carto would be rejected based on the ones that already have
>> been over the last year.
>
> This is not true, a different rendering based on hiking routes or public
> rights of way is something we could certainly consider.
>
>
> As I said previously, changes such as this aren't really relevant "if you
> can't see the paths themselves at all at a zoom level you'd use for planning
> a route over them.".
>
> However, now you're saying "... a different rendering ...".

I meant that we could consider changing the current Default rendering.

> In the
> immediately previous message you said:
>
> "So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render style
> which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this list to
> recent changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!"

I didn't write that (or anything you address in the rest of your
message) - I am not Rob Nickerson.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Dan S]

Hi all,

I'm so fed up of the carping over the default map render (OSM-Carto).
It's clearly a "contested resource" for our community. Was there ever
much discussion about creating transparent overlays (e.g. a hiking
overlay) on top of a minimal baselayer, so that we can "disaggregate"
the thing and make it less of a focus for squabbles? I don't remember
seeing discussion of overlays, but it would seem a good way for
everyone to access as many or as few features as they wanted.

Best
Dan

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/08/2015 07:43, Matthijs Melissen wrote:


On 18 Aug 2015 03:56, "Andy Townsend" > wrote:
> There's no interest to do this in the OSM "standard" style because 
it is abundantly clear that any new attempts at changes that make 
rural navigation possible* in OSM-carto would be rejected based on the 
ones that already have been over the last year.


This is not true, a different rendering based on hiking routes or 
public rights of way is something we could certainly consider.




As I said previously, changes such as this aren't really relevant "if 
you can't see the paths themselves at all at a zoom level you'd use for 
planning a route over them.".


However, now you're saying "... a different rendering ...".  In the 
immediately previous message you said:


"So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render 
style which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this 
list to recent changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!"


It is that was what I was replying to, explaining why there's little 
interest to do that on the OSM default render style.  Maybe that was 
just a trolling question that I shouldn't have replied to late at night 
:)  Back in 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-August/017680.html the 
first question I asked was "Are we talking about OSM-Carto here?", 
because it was unclear what you were suggesting.



Please stop antagonizing the default rendering as if it is on a 
mission to make your life as hard as possible, it comes across very 
childish and is a counterproductive way of discussing.



I don't believe that I've ever made _that_ claim :)

> Although it hasn't been explicitly stated, the direction of travel 
of that style is clear - some people want a map style that's useful 
for navigation, others want something that "looks nice"; based on 
comments on the issues raised it's clear that the people maintaining 
the style are in the latter group rather than the former.


Not true either - our main criterium for the recent changes is 
"readability", and that definitely includes being able to use the map 
for navigation.


Frankly, that's not what I'm reading from e.g. 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747#issuecomment-50188728 
.


As I've said before, one map style can't do everything and a decision to 
do X will necessarily be at the expense of Y, although I'd rather it had 
been more explicitly stated rather more explicitly. Although 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/CARTOGRAPHY.md 
does say "There are multiple primary purposes of the map style, which 
pull in different directions", it doesn't say what trade-offs are being 
made and why - but maybe that's not the point of that document.


However, if you're now asking about a _different_ rendering, maybe you 
need to explain a bit more about what you're proposing?  Are you 
suggesting an international style available from the osm.org layer 
switcher, something maintained by a "GB group" on a separate server, or 
something else?  Would there be changes to the osm.org website to allow 
tiles from it (or another style of the user's choice, such as the 
openstreetmap.de one) to be available as a layer?


Cheers,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 18 Aug 2015 03:56, "Andy Townsend"  wrote:
> There's no interest to do this in the OSM "standard" style because it is
abundantly clear that any new attempts at changes that make rural
navigation possible* in OSM-carto would be rejected based on the ones that
already have been over the last year.

This is not true, a different rendering based on hiking routes or public
rights of way is something we could certainly consider.

Please stop antagonizing the default rendering as if it is on a mission to
make your life as hard as possible, it comes across very childish and is a
counterproductive way of discussing.

> Although it hasn't been explicitly stated, the direction of travel of
that style is clear - some people want a map style that's useful for
navigation, others want something that "looks nice"; based on comments on
the issues raised it's clear that the people maintaining the style are in
the latter group rather than the former.

Not true either - our main criterium for the recent changes is
"readability", and that definitely includes being able to use the map for
navigation.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Andy Townsend]

On 17/08/2015 23:25, Rob Nickerson wrote:



So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render 
style which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this 
list to recent changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!


There's no interest to do this in the OSM "standard" style because it is 
abundantly clear that any new attempts at changes that make rural 
navigation possible* in OSM-carto would be rejected based on the ones 
that already have been over the last year.  Although it hasn't been 
explicitly stated, the direction of travel of that style is clear - some 
people want a map style that's useful for navigation, others want 
something that "looks nice"; based on comments on the issues raised it's 
clear that the people maintaining the style are in the latter group 
rather than the former.  This isn't a solvable problem; one map style 
can't be useful for different purposes** with conflicting requirements, 
render _everything_ in order to be a useful part of the feedback loop 
and also be a "nice looking map".  The current discussion about 
rendering surface on footpaths in OSM-carto is essentially a waste of 
time if you can't see the paths themselves at all at a zoom level you'd 
use for planning a route over them.


I suspect that a number of people have just stopped using the "standard" 
style altogether and are now using something else instead, whether 
that's OSM's "cycle map" style (a number of help and IRC questions get 
asked where people just assume that "everybody uses" that), OsmAnd 
internal styles, cycle.travel, or whatever.  I just stick my own tiles 
in in place of the MapQuest Open ones and use those.


Cheers,

Andy


* Seriously - if you wanted a nice walk in the Peak District, could you 
really use http://a.tile.openstreetmap.org/14/8118/5322.png to plan 
where you're going?  It's simply not fit for purpose when compared to 
http://a.tile.thunderforest.com/cycle/14/8118/5322.png , 
http://tile.cycle.travel/topoclassical/14/8118/5322.png or 
http://i.imgur.com/hvCHgFW.png .


** In addition to OSM-carto we've got 2 good but different options for 
cycling, various bus options including "Transport" on the mail osm.org 
layer switcher, for now at least we've got Mapquest open for car route 
planning, and I'd argue that my style is a good option for 
England-and-Wales footpaths (though you'd need to render your own tiles 
to use it).  What we're missing (of the major transport types) is 
something targeted at horseriders, and probably most importantly for 
mappers a "complete but ugly" style to replace the long-departed OsmaRender.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Paul Norman]

On 8/17/2015 3:25 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote:
I'm surprised if this is just England and Wales as I would have 
thought some other country has some way of documenting paths in a 
legal context and as such this may be relevant for other countries


I'm not aware of any countries which quite have the complexities of 
PRoW. There's *some* similar elements elsewhere, but nothing as 
wide-spread or important.


but the real question is: "would having some way to show the 
importance of particular paths/footways (just like roads have a 
classification) help, and if yes, how should we do this?"


Right now the best approaches I've seen involve making use of walking 
networks, but it can be technically a pain.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Rob Nickerson]

Thanks Andy,

Fully aware of access land, undocumented rights of way and permissive
paths. I just need to remember to be careful of what I write on this
mailing list (but I was trying not to write an essay).

I'm surprised if this is just England and Wales as I would have thought
some other country has some way of documenting paths in a legal context and
as such this may be relevant for other countries, but the real question is:
"would having some way to show the importance of particular paths/footways
(just like roads have a classification) help, and if yes, how should we do
this?"

So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render style
which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this list to
recent changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Andy Townsend]

On 17/08/2015 21:43, Rob Nickerson wrote:
...  In regards to designation=*, are we now the only country that 
makes a distinction between paths you have a legal right to walk on 
and any other path that might exist because people happen to walk over 
the land thus leaving a "desire line" path?


Hi Rob,

Apologies if I've grossly misunderstood here - I suspect I may have - 
but things in England and Wales* that aren't 
"designation=public_footpath"*** etc. aren't necessarily "desire 
lines".  There are a couple of other examples of "foot=yes":


1) Across Countryside and Rights of Way Act "access land".  I map paths 
across here as "foot=yes" because you do have a right of way - it's more 
than just permissive access (the landowner can't just say no - the CROW 
act gives them a number of reasons to temporarily close the land (e.g. 
grouse shooting I believe) but it's still "=yes".


2) Historic undocumented access rights, often in cities but also 
elsewhere.  This could be something that everyone uses as a footpath, 
but has never officially been listed as one.


That's not counting permissive access, such as a multi-use trail created 
by a council, or a route over which access has been negotiated with a 
landowner by e.g. Sustrans, or the desire lines you mention across land 
where it's clear access is permitted by the landowner (possibly 
indicated by a sign).


I'm not aware of another country with a similar scheme to England and 
Wales (Scotland** for example has a more Scandinavian-style system of an 
assumption of a right of access, with caveats).  This suggests to me 
that rendering designation doesn't really make a lot of sense outside of 
England and Wales.


Cheers,

Andy

* Unfortunately I don't have any first-hand knowledge about the 
situation in Northern Ireland, but this is the GB list so I presume 
we're just talking about GB anyway.


** See e.g. http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/The-Act-and-the-Code/Legal

*** I've only talked about "foot" and "footpath" here for simplicity.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Rob Nickerson]

Thanks Dudley.

I'm not sure that I agree that this is UK specific. We render roads
according to their status (motorway to unclassified), and as such I see
potential to do this for paths irrespective of country. In regards to
designation=*, are we now the only country that makes a distinction between
paths you have a legal right to walk on and any other path that might exist
because people happen to walk over the land thus leaving a "desire line"
path?

Rob


On 17 August 2015 at 18:42, Dudley Ibbett  wrote:

> Hi
>
> My thoughts as follows:
>
>
>1. This is really going to be something for a UK specific rendering.
>It is actually quite useful as a QC exercise to rendering footways/paths
>with and without a designation tag.  Something I do on my own Garmin map.
>The presumption on my part being that ideally we would like to see all
>footway/bridleways etc have their appropriate designation tag.
>2. I think this is really something for a specialist
>site.  “waymarkedtrails” does this very well.
>3. I would not be in favour of this.  It would be very subjective and
>would vary throughout the year for many footpaths and depend on who and how
>many people had walked it recently.
>
>
> I guess if the new rendering for footway throws up significant problems
> there will be more interest in a UK website.
>
> Regards
>
> Dudley
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
> *From:* Rob Nickerson 
> *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎16‎ ‎August‎ ‎2015 ‎18‎:‎27
> *To:* Talk-GB 
>
> Hi all,
>
> Given that paths and footways are now rendered the same way in the default
> OSM style I wonder whether it is time to look at how the map can provide
> better information.
>
> For rural mappers tagging a path/footway as unpaved surface results in it
> having less prominence on the map. As most major public rights of way are
> unpaved this makes these paths harder to view on the default OSM map.
>
> Some possible changes:
>
> 1. Render all paths/footways that are tagged as
> designation=public_footpath (or other RoW) more prominently.
> 2. Render those paths/footways that make up a long distance walking route
> more prominent (relation data).
> 3. Render based on another tag such as trail visibility [1] or maybe we
> need a brand new tag to indicate path dominance (like we have
> motorway/trunk/primary/etc for roads).
>
> What are people's thoughts on this? The second has a request on github
> already [2].
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
> [2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1750
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi


My thoughts as follows:


This is really going to be something for a UK specific rendering.  It is 
actually quite useful as a QC exercise to rendering footways/paths with and 
without a designation tag.  Something I do on my own Garmin map.  The 
presumption on my part being that ideally we would like to see all 
footway/bridleways etc have their appropriate designation tag.


I think this is really something for a specialist site.  “waymarkedtrails” does 
this very well.  


I would not be in favour of this.  It would be very subjective and would vary 
throughout the year for many footpaths and depend on who and how many people 
had walked it recently. 



I guess if the new rendering for footway throws up significant problems there 
will be more interest in a UK website.


Regards


Dudley





Sent from Windows Mail





From: Rob Nickerson
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎16‎ ‎August‎ ‎2015 ‎18‎:‎27
To: Talk-GB












Hi all,


Given that paths and footways are now rendered the same way in the default OSM 
style I wonder whether it is time to look at how the map can provide better 
information.

For rural mappers tagging a path/footway as unpaved surface results in it 
having less prominence on the map. As most major public rights of way are 
unpaved this makes these paths harder to view on the default OSM map.

Some possible changes:

1. Render all paths/footways that are tagged as designation=public_footpath (or 
other RoW) more prominently.
2. Render those paths/footways that make up a long distance walking route more 
prominent (relation data).

3. Render based on another tag such as trail visibility [1] or maybe we need a 
brand new tag to indicate path dominance (like we have 
motorway/trunk/primary/etc for roads).




What are people's thoughts on this? The second has a request on github already 
[2]. 

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
[2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1750

Regards,
Rob___
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] Paths and Footways

[Paul Norman]

On 8/16/2015 1:57 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a 
well-mapped central European city.  If there is evaluation of the 
results in both rural and urban settings in multiple countries, it's 
not getting posted to Github.


Pictures on Github issues are just previews. Evaluating a PR requires 
checking out the changes and using Kosmtik, Tilemill, or something else.


If you feel that a certain type of area isn't being reviewed, please do 
so when looking at PRs.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 16/08/2015 22:04, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 16 August 2015 at 22:57, ajt1...@gmail.com  wrote:

Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a
well-mapped central European city.  If there is evaluation of the results in
both rural and urban settings in multiple countries, it's not getting posted
to Github.

This is the PR only, other areas were discussed in the corresponding
issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/211

... which contained examples from Krakow, Krakow, Krakow, suburban 
Vancouver* and urban Vancouver, so yes - a slight improvement, but a 
very first-world-centric selection.


* which illustrates what's been lost nicely: 
http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/13/1288/2799.png



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 16 August 2015 at 22:57, ajt1...@gmail.com  wrote:
> Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a
> well-mapped central European city.  If there is evaluation of the results in
> both rural and urban settings in multiple countries, it's not getting posted
> to Github.

This is the PR only, other areas were discussed in the corresponding
issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/211

Also, Luxembourg is not in central Europe.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 16/08/2015 21:20, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 16 August 2015 at 21:06, ajt1...@gmail.com 

That makes some sense, but OSM-Carto's biggest problem is that a number of
the changes over the last year have been dedicated to making well-mapped
central European urban areas "look nice" at the expense of the rest of the
planet.

I would like to point out that this statement is incorrect. For all
change requests, we always evaluate the consequences for both rural
and urban settings, and changes are always tested on multiple
countries.


Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a 
well-mapped central European city.  If there is evaluation of the 
results in both rural and urban settings in multiple countries, it's not 
getting posted to Github.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 16 August 2015 at 21:06, ajt1...@gmail.com 
> That makes some sense, but OSM-Carto's biggest problem is that a number of
> the changes over the last year have been dedicated to making well-mapped
> central European urban areas "look nice" at the expense of the rest of the
> planet.

I would like to point out that this statement is incorrect. For all
change requests, we always evaluate the consequences for both rural
and urban settings, and changes are always tested on multiple
countries.  Also, only one out of the four maintainers of the
stylesheet is located in central Europe.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 16/08/2015 18:26, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

Given that paths and footways are now rendered the same way in the 
default OSM style I wonder whether it is time to look at how the map 
can provide better information.


For rural mappers tagging a path/footway as unpaved surface results in 
it having less prominence on the map. As most major public rights of 
way are unpaved this makes these paths harder to view on the default 
OSM map.


Some possible changes:

1. Render all paths/footways that are tagged as 
designation=public_footpath (or other RoW) more prominently.


Are we talking about OSM-Carto here?  That's by definition an 
international style and I don't think that rendering 
designation=public_footpath outside of England and Wales makes a lot of 
sense, although it would make sense as a "local style" for England and 
Wales (you've mentioned that as a possibility recently).  I don't know 
how far the "core paths" network in Scotland has progressed either on 
the ground or in OSM, but perhaps some variant based on that could work 
up there.


2. Render those paths/footways that make up a long distance walking 
route more prominent (relation data).


That makes some sense, but OSM-Carto's biggest problem is that a number 
of the changes over the last year have been dedicated to making 
well-mapped central European urban areas "look nice" at the expense of 
the rest of the planet.  There's a lot more that would have to be done 
to make OSM-Carto usable for e.g. rural footpaths outside cities.  
There's chapter and verse already in github issues (including "not 
rendering foot=yes access=private ways at some zooms" and "not rendering 
major landscape features such as abandoned railways"), so no need to 
repeat here, but a lot of the last year's changes would need to be 
reversed to make the style usable for that purpose.  This doesn't make 
the changes "wrong" or "bad" of course; every map style has to decide 
what to show and what not to show - try and show everything and you end 
up with a complete mess.


3. Render based on another tag such as trail visibility [1] or maybe 
we need a brand new tag to indicate path dominance (like we have 
motorway/trunk/primary/etc for roads).


I'm not sure there's "room" in the presentation of footway etc. for 
this.  I do render (using a modified style based on osm-carto from some 
time ago*) designation and width, but do throw 
footway/bridleway/cycleway/path into the same bucket. 
http://imgur.com/JQGc0YR is an example of that (compare with 
http://tile.openstreetmap.org/13/4061/2663.png ) - red means "public 
footpath", blue means "bridleway", grey means "no designation"; and dots 
mean "narrow" and dashes mean "wide".  I suspect that trying to display 
the many values of trail_visibility would be difficult or impossible 
(and what should be the default value where it is not recorded?).


One approach (if we're just talking about raster tiles here) might 
involve transparent overlays**, though that means even more data 
downloaded over what is likely to be a dodgy cellular data connection if 
you're in the middle of a field.  If we're not (and if we're not 
starting from OSM-carto, we don't need to) then other people have 
already suggested something else entirely***.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

* See https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style and 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT .  I'm not 
suggesting this is a "style for all rural map users" of course (it'd be 
rubbish for cyclists, for example).  It's just included as an example of 
the problems of displaying yet more different elements in the data.


** Like the Met Office use on their OpenLayers site (but better than 
that, obviously)


*** The author of http://blog.systemed.net/post/13 for one.

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

[Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi all,

Given that paths and footways are now rendered the same way in the default
OSM style I wonder whether it is time to look at how the map can provide
better information.

For rural mappers tagging a path/footway as unpaved surface results in it
having less prominence on the map. As most major public rights of way are
unpaved this makes these paths harder to view on the default OSM map.

Some possible changes:

1. Render all paths/footways that are tagged as designation=public_footpath
(or other RoW) more prominently.
2. Render those paths/footways that make up a long distance walking route
more prominent (relation data).
3. Render based on another tag such as trail visibility [1] or maybe we
need a brand new tag to indicate path dominance (like we have
motorway/trunk/primary/etc for roads).

What are people's thoughts on this? The second has a request on github
already [2].

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
[2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1750

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and footways

[Ed Avis]

Dave F.  writes:

>>I use footway for surfaced paths and path for unsurfaced,
>
>This is, IMO, incorrect usage. the primary tag should be used to declare 
>it's legal status (am I allowed down to go down that path) & secondary 
>tags such as 'surface' the physical condition of the way (am I able to 
>get down that path)

But there are already unambiguous tags to indicate legal status (designation=
public_footpath) and others (not quite as black-and-white, but still good)
to indicate whether you're 'allowed' (access=permissive etc).

The primary tag must be what exists on the ground.  There could be surfaced
footways on a military base, for example, which nobody but authorized personnel
may use; but still they would be highway=footway, with other tags indicating
access.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and footways

[Dave F.]

Nick Whitelegg wrote:

(when to use footway or path)



I use footway for surfaced paths and path for unsurfaced,


This is, IMO, incorrect usage. the primary tag should be used to declare 
it's legal status (am I allowed down to go down that path) & secondary 
tags such as 'surface' the physical condition of the way (am I able to 
get down that path)


cheers
Dave F.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and footways

[Ruan Kendall]

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

[Richard Mann]

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

[Trevor Hook]

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

[Richard Mann]

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

[Nick Whitelegg]

> (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

[Talk-GB] Paths and footways

[Tom Chance]

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