Re: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage
Hello Andy, Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl. These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing development extended, but at least were maintained as a route. True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people interested in using rights of ways are going to be using them in the countryside. Whilst that's probably right, I notice that the boundaries of these urban areas are drawn very loosely and don't just exclude heavily urbanised areas, e.g. you have excluded quite a large proportion of what is essentially rural Cheshire due to its proximity to Manchester - but in reality much of it is very rural including some long-distance footpaths etc. All of the land between Liverpool and Manchester is missing, and only shows countour lines at closer zoom levels, not just the cities themselves. I defined a series of rectangular areas to extract from the UK planet.osm, and in order to avoid adding urban areas to the database, I had to exclude small rural areas near the big cities. The bounding boxes probably need finer tuning. There's also a large void from Bridgnorth in Shropshire all the way to the North Sea near Lowestoft which cuts off a lot of rural areas. This probably arose in order to simplify my bounding boxes. I'll try and look into this. There is a large void in the North of England - which includes part of the Northumberland National Park. The northern limit of my northernmost bounding box is somewhere near Hadrian's Wall - again I'll look into this. Nick Are these voids intentional, or are they areas that haven't been rendered for whatever reason? ___ 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] Proper Rights of Way coverage
Hello Andy, Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl. These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing development extended, but at least were maintained as a route. True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people interested in using rights of ways are going to be using them in the countryside. Whilst that's probably right, I notice that the boundaries of these urban areas are drawn very loosely and don't just exclude heavily urbanised areas, e.g. you have excluded quite a large proportion of what is essentially rural Cheshire due to its proximity to Manchester - but in reality much of it is very rural including some long-distance footpaths etc. All of the land between Liverpool and Manchester is missing, and only shows countour lines at closer zoom levels, not just the cities themselves. There's also a large void from Bridgnorth in Shropshire all the way to the North Sea near Lowestoft which cuts off a lot of rural areas. There is a large void in the North of England - which includes part of the Northumberland National Park. Are these voids intentional, or are they areas that haven't been rendered for whatever reason? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Sent: 23 October 2009 10:43 AM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map Hello everyone, Following on from the unintentional rights-of-way coverage map generated by zooming out from the OSM/First Edition mashup that I mentioned the other day, I've now done a script to generate a real one. It's available at http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/statsmap.php That page also details what I consider rights of way. It shows quite well which areas of England and Wales have good ROW coverage and which need a lot more work (a project for 2010, perhaps?) Also see the blog post http://www.free-map.org.uk/wordpress/?p=19 Note that these maps are generated from Freemap's copy of the OSM database, so might be up to a week out of date. I normally update Freemap weekly so some animations should be possible in future! Also note that areas immediately around the big cities are excluded from the Freemap database, but then they wouldn't have many rights of way anyway! Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl. These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing development extended, but at least were maintained as a route. I assume your render is looking for the designation tag? A lot of footways I've added don't have that on them yet so wouldn't show up. How about a combined map to show the extent of this difference, if indeed that is the basis of your present version. Cheers Andy Nick ___ 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] Proper Rights of Way coverage map
Hello Andy, Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl. These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing development extended, but at least were maintained as a route. True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people interested in using rights of ways are going to be using them in the countryside. I assume your render is looking for the designation tag? A lot of footways I've added don't have that on them yet so wouldn't show up. How about a combined map to show the extent of this difference, if indeed that is the basis of your present version. It's a bit more sophisticated than that; see the URL for what I consider a right of way. Note that I tried a version with highway=footway,foot=yes added in, and got the same sort of pattern. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map
It's a bit more sophisticated than that; see the URL for what I consider a right of way. Note that I tried a version with highway=footway,foot=yes added in, and got the same sort of pattern. Nick In fact, it's possible to add highway=footway, foot=yes to the definition of a right of way by going to: http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/coverage.php?footyes=1 (compare with http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/coverage.php) Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map
just wondering: are any of the highway=footpath tags still in OSM database? I always used to use those for legal rights-of-way footpaths with a footpath sign until it became OSM-standard that highway=footway should be used for all paths regardless of legal status. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
