Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Dixon wrote:
> OK, I've updated the tagging of all the National Byway relations 
> listed on the wiki to network=rcn, and also updated the wiki to 
> reflect the changes.  I suppose I ought to go out and fill in 
> some of the local gaps now!

Thumbs up to all of that. :)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/National-Byway-rendering-on-OpenCycleMap-tp6287466p6297886.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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Peter Reed]

It might be easier using this link - - http://tinyurl.com/3oondxj

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is an alternative view of the National Byway as a KML overlay on OSM
Cycle Map.

 

http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/osmembed.html?kml=http://www.reedhome.o
rg.uk/Documents/KML/natbyway.kml
 &map=cyclemap

 

I'm afraid the data is a few weeks old, because I've generated it from a
local copy of the planet file that I pulled at the start of April.

 

Also, it may not be picking up everything. It uses relations that were
tagged "network=national_byway" or "operator=national_byway" at the time.

 

Click on a segment to see the relation name and road name.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Peter Reed]

Here is an alternative view of the National Byway as a KML overlay on OSM
Cycle Map.

 

http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/osmembed.html?kml=http://www.reedhome.o
rg.uk/Documents/KML/natbyway.kml
 &map=cyclemap

 

I'm afraid the data is a few weeks old, because I've generated it from a
local copy of the planet file that I pulled at the start of April.

 

Also, it may not be picking up everything. It uses relations that were
tagged "network=national_byway" or "operator=national_byway" at the time.

 

Click on a segment to see the relation name and road name.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[David Dixon]

On 21/04/2011 13:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

David Dixon wrote:

Richard - are you prepared to humour the rest of us and give this a go?


Well, I can't stop you!

If I were someone wanting the National Byway to render right now, I'd tag it
as rcn, not ncn, because I believe "if it quacks like a duck, tag it like a
duck" and the quality and design of the National Byway is much more akin to
an old-style county cycleway (now generally Regional Routes) than to our
National Cycle Network.


OK, I've updated the tagging of all the National Byway relations listed 
on the wiki to network=rcn, and also updated the wiki to reflect the 
changes.  I suppose I ought to go out and fill in some of the local gaps 
now!


David

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com] wrote:
>Sent: 21 April 2011 2:02 PM
>To: Richard Fairhurst
>Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
>
>On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
>wrote:
>> an old-style county cycleway (now generally Regional Routes) ...
>
>Does anyone object if longish-distance routes (eg the round-Berkshire
>route) are now coded as rcn (rather than lcn), given that Sustrans have
moved
>away from making a distinction between their national and regional routes?
>

A little caution here. Although all the Sustrans National Cycle Network
numbering is being harmonised to the white number on red patch they still
make a distinction internally between "national" and "regional". One and two
digit numbers are being retained for the "national" infrastructure, which
basically is the very long primary routes. The shorter "regional" routes
(though they still have to be over certain length to qualify for a number)
are three digit. All the old white on blue patch regional routes are being
renumbered to three digit red patches as and when rangers get to them, if
Sustrans needs to reclaim a number, or if all the LA permanent signing needs
changing. So don't expect the process to be complete any time soon. 

Cheers

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[monxton]

On 21/04/2011 13:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

If I were someone wanting the National Byway to render right now, I'd tag it
as rcn, not ncn, because I believe "if it quacks like a duck, tag it like a
duck" and the quality and design of the National Byway is much more akin to
an old-style county cycleway (now generally Regional Routes) than to our
National Cycle Network.


I agree it feel more like an RCN. I'll retag my local section and see 
what emerges.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Fairhurst]

Richard Mann wrote:
> Does anyone object if longish-distance routes (eg the round-Berkshire
> route) are now coded as rcn (rather than lcn), given that Sustrans
> have moved away from making a distinction between their national and
> regional routes?

Personally I think that'd be a great improvement. There's quite a lot in
Northern Ireland that should be RCN, too, not LCN.

cheers
Richard




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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> an old-style county cycleway (now generally Regional Routes) ...

Does anyone object if longish-distance routes (eg the round-Berkshire
route) are now coded as rcn (rather than lcn), given that Sustrans
have moved away from making a distinction between their national and
regional routes?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Dixon wrote:
> Richard - are you prepared to humour the rest of us and give this a go?

Well, I can't stop you!

If I were someone wanting the National Byway to render right now, I'd tag it
as rcn, not ncn, because I believe "if it quacks like a duck, tag it like a
duck" and the quality and design of the National Byway is much more akin to
an old-style county cycleway (now generally Regional Routes) than to our
National Cycle Network.

If I were the guy who runs OpenCycleMap and was looking for a way to render
it without putting in NB-specific logic, I'd tweak the rendering rules to
show route=bicycle, without a network tag, in green (and move the MTB routes
to brown, because, well, it's mud and that).

But as I'm neither of those, you do what you like. And one of these days I
might get the magical extra hours to set up a renderer that does things the
_right_ way. ;)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/National-Byway-rendering-on-OpenCycleMap-tp6287466p6293878.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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[David Dixon]

On 20/04/2011 13:19, monxton wrote:


The National Byway is currently tagged as :
route=bicycle
network=national_byway
name=National Byway ()

but the proposal being discussed here is to change to network=ncn



I started one of the older threads on the same topic, so I've been 
following this with interest.  It seems the majority is in favour of the 
above change.


Richard - are you prepared to humour the rest of us and give this a go?

Andy A. - is there a straightforward way of distinguishing between 
different classes of NCR / RCR / LCR on OCM, say for example by 
including a "colour = XXX" tag that the renderer uses?  Apart from 
making the map easier to view, the routes could match the signs on the 
ground.


Finally, I bumped into one of our Council's rights of way officers 
today, who has a lot to do with cycling provision.  I'd previously 
brought OCM to her attention and she was very impressed.  She's been 
showing her colleagues, and realises that there's no point trying to 
produce a dedicated map of cycling infrastructure as it already exists 
as OCM, and she's looking into how the Council's data can be 
incorporated - a big thumbs up both to Andy and all the mappers!


David

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[monxton]

On 20/04/2011 12:31, Peter Miller wrote:


I have created a new ITO Map overlay showing highway=byway in red and
designation=restricted_byway in blue. It would also show ways with
route=bicycle and name=National Byway as a thick green line, however
there aren't any that I can see as yet.

You can try it here:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=90


That's an interesting map, but it's not what we're discussing here.

Often the ways officially designated as byway or restricted_byway are 
not cyclable. Cyclists are entitled to use them, but in practice usually 
cannot. More often they are usable by MTBs.


The National Byway is currently tagged as :
  route=bicycle
  network=national_byway
  name=National Byway ()

but the proposal being discussed here is to change to network=ncn


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[SomeoneElse]

On 20/04/2011 10:03, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:

On your note re Sustrans walking/cycling I did the same chuckle. I'm also
surprised that they haven't yet changed the standard ranger sticker from the
cycling one to the one that adds the pedestrian at the top as well. Every
ranger patch I put up I have to add the walking/cycling (SPB) patch which is
just a waste.


The "useful to pedestrians as well" bit might explain why Sustrans' (and 
now OS) maps near me have people following NCN67 jumping off a former 
railway bridge onto the road below and then cycling up a footpath to get 
onto the next bit!  I guess that they'll sort it out when they put the 
signposts up.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[monxton]

On 20/04/2011 12:11, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Peter Miller wrote:

What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify
something as being part of this network?


Just route=bicycle, name=National Byway should be enough IMO. I wouldn't
really call the National Byway a network - it's a circular route with the
odd spur - but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.


People seem to find this an important distinction, but it's a little 
opaque to me. I mean, I understand that mathematically a network is a 
collection of connected points (so that you can always navigate between 
any two), and that a route is one way between two nodes. But that 
doesn't help me distinguish between the NB and the Sustrans NCN - just 
that the Sustrans network is bigger. If I am planning a cycling trip 
(oops nearly used the word route there) then I will choose whatever 
works best, which is likely to be a collection of segments from several 
different routes.



(Bear in mind that, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the NB
"vapourware", its ambition has thus far exceeded its reach. It's a lovely
project but I think the completion date has slipped by about 10 years so
far. It's a bit like standing at a station when the departure board always
says it'll be here 3 minutes from now... and does so for an hour. We
should be fairly careful to tag what the NB is, not what it wants to be.
Even the 'National Map' on the NB website overstates its existence: there
is no signage in Gloucestershire, and only intermittent signage in
Oxfordshire where it coincides with the NCN, even though it claims both
were completed in 2009.)


I completely agree about only tagging what's on the ground. But I've had 
the opposite experience of the NB from you - in the south west I have 
found signs in places where I had not expected them. (Mind you it's hard 
to know what to expect as the NB south-west map is out of date and out 
of print too.) That's one reason I am keen to get them rendered on the OCM.



Oh, absolutely. The National Byway is not made up of byways - in fact,
it's expressly meant to be more an "on-road" network than (say) the NCN,
which is why touring cyclists like it.


I think there's an older meaning of the word "byway" to mean any minor / 
unclassified / back road. Perhaps that meaning has been eclipsed since 
the (relatively) recent reclassification of RUPPs and BOATs, but I guess 
it was what the NB people intended.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:
> I can't see any obvious instances of this tagging in the database at
> present. Can you give me some example ways?

Ah, well, if you're asking about how it's tagged at present: it's grouped
in _relations_ (as cycle routes usually are) which have tags
route=bicycle, network=national_byway.

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Byway .

To reiterate: the National Byway has _nothing_ to do with "byways" of any
other sort. highway=byway and designation=restricted_byway are entirely
separate beasts. The NB people just happened upon the name because it has
nice connotations of quiet lanes and pretty countryside, I guess.

cheers
Richard




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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Peter Miller]

I have created a new ITO Map overlay showing highway=byway in red and
designation=restricted_byway in blue. It would also show ways with
route=bicycle and name=National Byway as a thick green line, however there
aren't any that I can see as yet.

You can try it here:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=90

Note: this overlay map does not appear in the ITO Map layer selection list
so as to avoid confusing users in other parts of the world - you will need
to bookmark this URL if you want to return to it. t also doesn't have a key
as yet as it is likely to evolve to meet some need or other or it may get
canned in the near future if we don't need it any more!


Regards,


Peter




On 20 April 2011 12:23, Peter Miller  wrote:

>
>
> On 20 April 2011 12:11, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
>> Peter Miller wrote:
>> > What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify
>> > something as being part of this network?
>>
>> Just route=bicycle, name=National Byway should be enough IMO. I wouldn't
>> really call the National Byway a network - it's a circular route with the
>> odd spur - but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
>>
>
> I can't see any obvious instances of this tagging in the database at
> present. Can you give me some example ways?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>> (Bear in mind that, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the NB
>> "vapourware", its ambition has thus far exceeded its reach. It's a lovely
>> project but I think the completion date has slipped by about 10 years so
>> far. It's a bit like standing at a station when the departure board always
>> says it'll be here 3 minutes from now... and does so for an hour. We
>> should be fairly careful to tag what the NB is, not what it wants to be.
>> Even the 'National Map' on the NB website overstates its existence: there
>> is no signage in Gloucestershire, and only intermittent signage in
>> Oxfordshire where it coincides with the NCN, even though it claims both
>> were completed in 2009.)
>>
>> > Fyi, I notice that highway=byway is depreciated by the wiki and that
>> > designation=restricted_byway is proposed in its place. There is a
>> > scattering of both tags in the current OSM DB, but nothing that creates
>> > a coherent network. I am also not convinced that either of these are
>> > the right tag for this purpose.
>>
>> Oh, absolutely. The National Byway is not made up of byways - in fact,
>> it's expressly meant to be more an "on-road" network than (say) the NCN,
>> which is why touring cyclists like it.
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Peter Reed]

As a normal contributor of content, and user of the Cycle Map I have in the
past shared some of the responsibility for tagging my local cycle network as
LCN "because is renders better". 

 

I've learned though, and come round to the view that this is not a good
idea. 

 

It now seems to me that there is a difference between a local "cycle
network" and "any old piece of local cycle infrastructure", but it's not
always clear cut. 

 

Around here there are quite a few real local networks, sponsored by local
authorities to encourage leisure cycling. The authority gives each one a
name, puts up special signposts, and usually publishes maps and guides to
promote them. To me these are obvious "local networks". 

 

The more difficult cases are smaller sections of path or road, that are
signed for use by cyclists. As a general rule of thumb it seems natural to
me only to regard these as part of the "network" if they are signposted with
a destination: not otherwise. Something that is just marked as a cycle, or
shared use path is a "Cycleway", or whatever, not an "LCN". If they are
signposted as leading somewhere ("Town Centre", a school or some other
destination) then I am inclined to regard them as part of the local network.

 

I can't say I've tagged them consistently in past though.

 

While I'm on about all this, there is also an issue with rendering a basic
"Cycleway" that isn't really to do with the Cycle map. Rightly, or wrongly,
much of my local network is on shared-use paths. A lot of local cycle
campaigning is concerned with persuading people that it's safe. They don't
necessarily need to tangle with heavy traffic. So while nobody would claim
that these shared paths are ideal cycling infrastructure, they are what we
have and they are quite important. On the cycle map they are less visible
than anything rendered as part of the cycle network, but I don't think
that's hugely important. Cycle networks don't appear on Mapnik of course,
but cyclways do. The frustrating thing is that on most Mapnik zoom levels
these shared use paths are over-ridden by the adjacent road. This issue
seems to come up periodically on the mapnik rendering suggestions, but gets
lost among more complex issues. It can't be difficult to fix, but with so
many other demands it maybe needs a bit of lobbying.

 

Finally, I'm not clear about how different people interpret "bicycle=yes".
I'm looking at UK data here. "bicycle=yes" is commonly used on footways,
bridleways, tracks, paths and (somewhat redundantly) on cycleways. Off-road
it seems to be used to mean "this is a path or track or whatever that can be
used by cyclists". That's perfectly reasonable. However the same tag is also
used fairly widely on residential and unclassified roads, and it's not
unknown on more major roads. On-road it seems to be interpreted as "this
road can be used by cyclists, but then all the others can as well. As we
knew that already, we will ignore this tag".

 

Am I missing something?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[monxton]

On 20/04/2011 11:24, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:


This raises an important point that cropped up last week in Brum where Brian
had tagged a serious of routes that the local campaign group, Pushbikes, are
promoting. The issue was that these routes don't exist on the ground. Like a
bus route there is nothing really to tell you a route exists though there is
clearly information around (paper map etc) that confirms they do and shows
you where they go, a bus route map would be similar. So for me whether it is
part of a network or not is immaterial. As far as I'm concerned using
ncn/lcn/lcn is the best way of tagging a signed logical route whether its
part of a bigger network or not. For routes that are not signed perhaps
another layer is needed so that you can print the route and follow it but it
doesn't clutter the signed physical network version of the cycle map.


Bus routes do have a physical manifestation inasmuch as they usually 
have physical stops which usually list the routes which stop there.


This is pretty much like a bicycle route which has signs only at the 
junctions.


But yes, I would only tag a bicycle route which is signed on the ground. 
Though the OCM does support "proposed" routes, using dashed lines.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Peter Miller]

On 20 April 2011 12:11, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
> > What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify
> > something as being part of this network?
>
> Just route=bicycle, name=National Byway should be enough IMO. I wouldn't
> really call the National Byway a network - it's a circular route with the
> odd spur - but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
>

I can't see any obvious instances of this tagging in the database at
present. Can you give me some example ways?

Regards,


Peter





> (Bear in mind that, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the NB
> "vapourware", its ambition has thus far exceeded its reach. It's a lovely
> project but I think the completion date has slipped by about 10 years so
> far. It's a bit like standing at a station when the departure board always
> says it'll be here 3 minutes from now... and does so for an hour. We
> should be fairly careful to tag what the NB is, not what it wants to be.
> Even the 'National Map' on the NB website overstates its existence: there
> is no signage in Gloucestershire, and only intermittent signage in
> Oxfordshire where it coincides with the NCN, even though it claims both
> were completed in 2009.)
>
> > Fyi, I notice that highway=byway is depreciated by the wiki and that
> > designation=restricted_byway is proposed in its place. There is a
> > scattering of both tags in the current OSM DB, but nothing that creates
> > a coherent network. I am also not convinced that either of these are
> > the right tag for this purpose.
>
> Oh, absolutely. The National Byway is not made up of byways - in fact,
> it's expressly meant to be more an "on-road" network than (say) the NCN,
> which is why touring cyclists like it.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,


Peter


>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
> ___
> 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] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:
> What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify
> something as being part of this network?

Just route=bicycle, name=National Byway should be enough IMO. I wouldn't
really call the National Byway a network - it's a circular route with the
odd spur - but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.

(Bear in mind that, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the NB
"vapourware", its ambition has thus far exceeded its reach. It's a lovely
project but I think the completion date has slipped by about 10 years so
far. It's a bit like standing at a station when the departure board always
says it'll be here 3 minutes from now... and does so for an hour. We
should be fairly careful to tag what the NB is, not what it wants to be.
Even the 'National Map' on the NB website overstates its existence: there
is no signage in Gloucestershire, and only intermittent signage in
Oxfordshire where it coincides with the NCN, even though it claims both
were completed in 2009.)

> Fyi, I notice that highway=byway is depreciated by the wiki and that
> designation=restricted_byway is proposed in its place. There is a
> scattering of both tags in the current OSM DB, but nothing that creates
> a coherent network. I am also not convinced that either of these are
> the right tag for this purpose.

Oh, absolutely. The National Byway is not made up of byways - in fact,
it's expressly meant to be more an "on-road" network than (say) the NCN,
which is why touring cyclists like it.

cheers
Richard


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Peter Miller]

On 20 April 2011 10:46, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Andy Allan wrote:
> > Ooh, a golden opportunity to point out (to Richard of all people :-) )
> > that the key / value pairs are just arbitrary UTF8 strings and can
> > mean whatever we want them to mean. So the letters n-e-t-w-o-r-k
> > could mean "importance classification" and n-c-n could mean
> > "cycling route of national importance" and we can all go home
> > happy.
>
> So now I can point out to you that "arbitrary importance scales are
> generally considered harmful in OSM" and we can have that argument too. It
> just gets better. ;)
>
> Your map, your call. Personally I'd be very saddened to see the National
> Byway rendered in the same way as the National Cycle Network as I think
> it'd (a) look shit (b) not be helpful to users. But it's not my map.
>

What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify something as
being part of this network?

Fyi, I notice that highway=byway is depreciated by the wiki and that
designation=restricted_byway is proposed in its place. There is a scattering
of both tags in the current OSM DB, but nothing that creates a coherent
network. I am also not convinced that either of these are the right tag for
this purpose.

When we agree what the tags should be used then ITO can host an overlay map
showing the view and maintain it going forward using ITO Map.

We might even be able to get the National Byways website to include a slippy
map on their website based on it.


Regards,


Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd




> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] wrote:
>Sent: 20 April 2011 10:17 AM
>To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
>
>Andy Allan wrote:
>> If we keep the route=bicycle I would suggest network=ncn, name =
>> National Byway and therefore bring it into line with all the other
>> national cycling routes in every other country in OSM.
>
>Strongly disagree. But then you know that. :)
>
>I think the root (route?) problem is that we're tagging everything as
>"networks" even if they're not. I've been as guilty as anyone of this: when
I
>mapped the Four Castles Cycle Route around Abergavenny, I tagged it as lcn,
>"just to get it to render".
>
>But it isn't a network, really. It's just a route. Lots of other people
have done
>this, to the extent that I wince whenever I look at OCM at z<13 - all that
>obtrusive dark blue in places which really don't have local cycle networks
at all.

This raises an important point that cropped up last week in Brum where Brian
had tagged a serious of routes that the local campaign group, Pushbikes, are
promoting. The issue was that these routes don't exist on the ground. Like a
bus route there is nothing really to tell you a route exists though there is
clearly information around (paper map etc) that confirms they do and shows
you where they go, a bus route map would be similar. So for me whether it is
part of a network or not is immaterial. As far as I'm concerned using
ncn/lcn/lcn is the best way of tagging a signed logical route whether its
part of a bigger network or not. For routes that are not signed perhaps
another layer is needed so that you can print the route and follow it but it
doesn't clutter the signed physical network version of the cycle map.

For now I've removed the lcn tags from a couple of the Pushbikes unsigned
routes in Brum and Brian and I have it on our to-do to work out how best to
handle them locally going forwards as we want to help promote Pushbikes
excellent work.

Cheers

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andy Allan wrote:
> Ooh, a golden opportunity to point out (to Richard of all people :-) )
> that the key / value pairs are just arbitrary UTF8 strings and can
> mean whatever we want them to mean. So the letters n-e-t-w-o-r-k
> could mean "importance classification" and n-c-n could mean
> "cycling route of national importance" and we can all go home
> happy.

So now I can point out to you that "arbitrary importance scales are
generally considered harmful in OSM" and we can have that argument too. It
just gets better. ;)

Your map, your call. Personally I'd be very saddened to see the National
Byway rendered in the same way as the National Cycle Network as I think
it'd (a) look shit (b) not be helpful to users. But it's not my map.

cheers
Richard




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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Andy Allan]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Richard Fairhurst
 wrote:

> I think the root (route?) problem is that we're tagging everything as
> "networks" even if they're not. I've been as guilty as anyone of this: when
> I mapped the Four Castles Cycle Route around Abergavenny, I tagged it as
> lcn, "just to get it to render".
>
> But it isn't a network, really. It's just a route.

Ooh, a golden opportunity to point out (to Richard of all people :-) )
that the key / value pairs are just arbitrary UTF8 strings and can
mean whatever we want them to mean. So the letters n-e-t-w-o-r-k could
mean "importance classification" and n-c-n could mean "cycling route
of national importance" and we can all go home happy.

After all, the letters "ncn" is a historical accident. I thought
sustrans called each route something like NCN 4, when it turned out
they call them NCR 4 (see wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCR_4 ). The "lcn" was - despite some
revisionist history that I've been 100% part of - clearly started as
the London Cycle Network, and the s/London/local/ bit was revisionism
on my part to head off arguments. The network tag seemed appropriate
when all these ncn, lcn, rcn were supposedly each ending in the work
"network", but as soon as someone asked about a standalone local route
then I said don't worry about it, just use lcn, nobody cares whether a
route is part of a larger network or not.

And all over the world people are getting along fine with the
ambiguities. Perhaps when all the tags are meaningless foreign words
people worry less about them.

So don't let the repeated use of the letters n-e-t-w-o-r-k get in the
way of mapping!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andy Allan wrote:
> If we keep the route=bicycle I would suggest network=ncn, 
> name = National Byway and therefore bring it into line with 
> all the other national cycling routes in every other country
> in OSM.

Strongly disagree. But then you know that. :)

I think the root (route?) problem is that we're tagging everything as
"networks" even if they're not. I've been as guilty as anyone of this: when
I mapped the Four Castles Cycle Route around Abergavenny, I tagged it as
lcn, "just to get it to render".

But it isn't a network, really. It's just a route. Lots of other people have
done this, to the extent that I wince whenever I look at OCM at z<13 - all
that obtrusive dark blue in places which really don't have local cycle
networks at all.

>From OSM's point of view, there's no reason at all why a route=bicycle
relation needs a network= tag. If it's a bicycle route, tagging it as
route=bicycle should be sufficient. If it's a bicycle route, it would also
be great to see it on the Cycle Map. But since the Cycle Map requires a
network= tag, so we all add one.

So what would be most awesome of all would be if OCM rendered route=bicycle
without a network tag - whether this be the Four Castles, the National
Byway, the Wiltshire Cycleway, or whatever.



cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/National-Byway-rendering-on-OpenCycleMap-tp6287466p6290064.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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Thanks for response Andy. I'm with you regarding tagging the NB as ncn= for
the reasons you give. Appreciate all your hard work in keeping the cyclemap
up and running. It's a fantastic resource.

On your note re Sustrans walking/cycling I did the same chuckle. I'm also
surprised that they haven't yet changed the standard ranger sticker from the
cycling one to the one that adds the pedestrian at the top as well. Every
ranger patch I put up I have to add the walking/cycling (SPB) patch which is
just a waste.

Cheers
Andy

>-Original Message-
>From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com]
>Sent: 20 April 2011 9:23 AM
>To: monxton
>Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
>
>On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:22 PM, monxton 
>wrote:
>>  So I hope his sense of humour is robust enough for me to mention that
>> it's 3.5 years since since the schedule for rendering the National
>> Byway was "this week".
>
>eeek!
>
>Let's face it though, in the face of trying to keep the server running
under
>ever-increasing pressures, and dealing with problems and improvements in
>the cartography that affect the whole planet, it's not hugely surprising
that
>the National Byway hasn't quite bubbled up to the top of my todo list. I
mean,
>the key hasn't been updated in 3.5 years either, and I've never gotten
around
>to documenting my wonderful system for highlighting places that serve
>fryups, and I think both of those are more important :-)
>
>
>But on the National Byway issue, there are a few fundamental things.
>I've pretty much settled on not adding any new types of cycle route
>highlighting, since I think three levels of hierarchy have pretty much
proven
>sufficient in many different countries. I disagree (with
>Richard) that there's anything fundamentally different between a cycle
route
>of national importance organised by one UK charity as opposed to a cycle
>route of national importance organised by a different UK charity. However,
>I'm aware that we are doing lots of non-cyclists a disfavour by classifying
the
>national byway as only being for cycling (with the route=bicycle tag). If
we
>keep the route=bicycle I would suggest network=ncn, name = National Byway
>and therefore bring it into line with all the other national cycling routes
in
>every other country in OSM. If anyone cares about the differences between a
>Sustrans route and other routes, then the operator tag would be
appropriate.
>
>So I expect to render it at some point (still), but it's never really been
a great
>priority for me, and when it does get rendered I'll be treating it the same
way
>as all the other national "cycling" routes[1] around the world.
>
>Cheers,
>Andy
>
>[1] I was at a Sustrans rangers meeting once where the big guns were
>discussing the fact that their network was for both cyclists and walkers,
and
>why did so many people think it was only for cyclists. I laughed slightly
and
>pointed out that they'd called it the "National Cycle Network" and the clue
to
>the cause of the confusion might be in the name.
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3584 - Release Date: 04/19/11



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:22 PM, monxton  wrote:
>  So I hope his sense of humour is robust enough for me to
> mention that it's 3.5 years since since the schedule for rendering the
> National Byway was "this week".

eeek!

Let's face it though, in the face of trying to keep the server running
under ever-increasing pressures, and dealing with problems and
improvements in the cartography that affect the whole planet, it's not
hugely surprising that the National Byway hasn't quite bubbled up to
the top of my todo list. I mean, the key hasn't been updated in 3.5
years either, and I've never gotten around to documenting my wonderful
system for highlighting places that serve fryups, and I think both of
those are more important :-)

But on the National Byway issue, there are a few fundamental things.
I've pretty much settled on not adding any new types of cycle route
highlighting, since I think three levels of hierarchy have pretty much
proven sufficient in many different countries. I disagree (with
Richard) that there's anything fundamentally different between a cycle
route of national importance organised by one UK charity as opposed to
a cycle route of national importance organised by a different UK
charity. However, I'm aware that we are doing lots of non-cyclists a
disfavour by classifying the national byway as only being for cycling
(with the route=bicycle tag). If we keep the route=bicycle I would
suggest network=ncn, name = National Byway and therefore bring it into
line with all the other national cycling routes in every other country
in OSM. If anyone cares about the differences between a Sustrans route
and other routes, then the operator tag would be appropriate.

So I expect to render it at some point (still), but it's never really
been a great priority for me, and when it does get rendered I'll be
treating it the same way as all the other national "cycling" routes[1]
around the world.

Cheers,
Andy

[1] I was at a Sustrans rangers meeting once where the big guns were
discussing the fact that their network was for both cyclists and
walkers, and why did so many people think it was only for cyclists. I
laughed slightly and pointed out that they'd called it the "National
Cycle Network" and the clue to the cause of the confusion might be in
the name.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[monxton]

On 19/04/2011 17:05, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:

  monxton [mailto:gm...@jordan-maynard.org] wrote:



These, and other threads I haven't listed, tend to end with Andy saying that he 
will render the National Byway tags in their own colour some time in the future.


I guess we need to be patient with Andy. Yes it would be nice to see it
rendered as a brown line or whatever with little
http://www.thenationalbyway.org/img/nb_logo.gif shields instead of the
Sustrans NCN numbering. But I'm sure it will happen eventually.


It would be nice to see it rendered anyhow. I really, really, don't want 
to annoy Andy, because if we didn't love the cycle map so much we 
wouldn't care what it rendered. So I hope his sense of humour is robust 
enough for me to mention that it's 3.5 years since since the schedule 
for rendering the National Byway was "this week".


I'll get my coat.


I know not everyone here cares for the National Byway. For me, it hits the
spot for route planning much better than the Sustrans routes, which tend to
be just too slow for long journeys.


The two are trying to do very different things, each to their own.


That's something that's said a few times on this list, but IMHO it's 
only partly true. I'd rather say that the Sustrans routes are trying to 
do about three different things, and the National Byway does only one of 
those three.


If that were not so, there would not be so many places where the NB 
takes the same route as a Sustrans route.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

 monxton [mailto:gm...@jordan-maynard.org] wrote:
>Sent: 19 April 2011 3:24 PM
>To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
>
>Lately I've been doing some tagging of the South-West region of the
National
>Byway, and I'm finding it quite disappointing that it is not rendered on
the
>cycle map.
>
>I've rummaged around in the history of this issue and located what I think
are
>the most relevant thread starters:
>
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/009449.html
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2007-
>September/005861.html
>
>also Richard's summary on the forum:
>http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4141
>
>These, and other threads I haven't listed, tend to end with Andy saying
that
>he will render the National Byway tags in their own colour some time in the
>future.

I guess we need to be patient with Andy. Yes it would be nice to see it
rendered as a brown line or whatever with little
http://www.thenationalbyway.org/img/nb_logo.gif shields instead of the
Sustrans NCN numbering. But I'm sure it will happen eventually.

>
>Is there any likelihood that that time is nigh? I know this sounds like a
nag, so if
>there anything that can be done (style files?) to help get to that point,
I'm
>happy to volunteer.
>
>(I know not everyone here cares for the National Byway. For me, it hits the
>spot for route planning much better than the Sustrans routes, which tend to
>be just too slow for long journeys.)

The two are trying to do very different things, each to their own.

Cheers
Andy
(Yet another Sustrans Volunteer)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[martyn]

I recently cycled following Byway signs to the Cambridgeshire border 
near Gamlingay (where the signs disappeared ..)  I later extended the 
relation for that part of the Byway which I found by searching the Wiki.


The Sustrans network is often better mapped in OSM than on the Sustrans 
website.  I recently rode some local signed roads that are not on the 
Sustrans website.


The National Byway website, in contrast, has no serious online mapping. 
 There is a low resolution representation that is useless for planning 
an actual cycle trip. They sell maps, but some are out of stock, and the 
whole Byway (and local Loops) is not covered.


The Byway needs a good map, and OSM/OpenCycleMap is ideally equipped to 
provide it.


to quote Andy Allan in another context:

One of the phrases I started using a few years ago is “render and they 
will map” – or, in other words, if you are interested in a particular 
aspect of mapping data being improved then the best way to encourage 
mappers to improve that is to make it visible and useful.



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