Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
Hi Adam, Adding designation=public_footpath would be worthwhile (as long as the paths are signposted as such), however as noted with the Classic vs Alternative debate there is no need to change highway=footway. Regards, Rob p.s. Check out my previous email about the wiki pages and let me know if you have any feedback. My dilemma is that essentially all of my walking routes so far are highway=footpath / highway=bridleway with very little designation= (because I haven't done much mapping since I saw designation= being discussed), so changing to a combination of path/track/service designation would be quite a chunk of work. I'm up for doing it, if that's a good thing to do. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
Robert Norris [mailto:rw_nor...@hotmail.com] wrote: Sent: 13 May 2012 20:53 To: adam.li...@dotankstudios.com; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject I always use Potlatch an editor, and so the majority of the paths I have added are highway=footpath, unless I know it's designated as a bridleway in which case I've set it as highway=bridleway. If I use a path, but it's not actually signed as a public or otherwise footpath then I think I should use highway=path, but actually tend to just use highway=footpath as it's there for me in Potlatch. Generally for 'countryside' mapping I use JOSM for larger scale edits. Potlatch for smaller detail updates. Each to their own of course. I think JOSM can be setup to use special presets, i.e. for UK tagging presets - although I've never done this myself. Pretty easy to do this yourself. Instructions at http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/TaggingPresets Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
Hey All, This is a very interesting discussion - wish I'd spotted it a bit earlier. My primary interest as someone-adding-to-OSM is places I can / can't walk, so this discussion definitely affects the walking routes/paths I (feel I am) looking after in/around South Bucks. I always use Potlatch an editor, and so the majority of the paths I have added are highway=footpath, unless I know it's designated as a bridleway in which case I've set it as highway=bridleway. If I use a path, but it's not actually signed as a public or otherwise footpath then I think I should use highway=path, but actually tend to just use highway=footpath as it's there for me in Potlatch. Semantically it feels cleaner to use highway=path/track/service depending on width and condition (a tarmac'd driveway I tag as service, a muddy path that is wide enough to fit a car is a track for me, narrower is just a path) and *then* adding designation tags e.g. public_footpath or permissive_footpath (as is around the Hampden estate). In my experience around Bucks, walkers, cyclists and horse riders all use the same paths, so I only add specific access tags when it is a 'NO' (as in a few no cycles signs around here, against mostly in the Hampden Estate area). My dilemma is that essentially all of my walking routes so far are highway=footpath / highway=bridleway with very little designation= (because I haven't done much mapping since I saw designation= being discussed), so changing to a combination of path/track/service designation would be quite a chunk of work. I'm up for doing it, if that's a good thing to do. Is there any consensus on whether this is a good thing to do or not (yet)? If it is a good thing, then I'd love to see Potlatch updated somehow to allow for this (perhaps changing footpath to be highway=path adding public footpath with highway=path/designation=public_footway), and would be up for doing that piece of work if that helps, as it would really help me. On a minor tangent - is there any pattern or spec around tagging the signposts at all? I'm starting to think it would be useful, as not all junctions have sign posts, and so it could help people know which junction is which when on a new walk. I had a quick search on the wiki, but couldn't find anything (I could be searching for the wrong thing). Oh, and I've just spotted the Google Doc, so will try to add my thoughts to that if I get some free time later on. Hope this makes sense, Adam On 12 May 2012, at 09:21, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where they are not known. Yes, but no. Yes I agree that it's information we should gather, and anyone more into this thing than a casual mapper probably should. However in order to broaden OSM's appeal we can't demand it at the entry level. Particularly if there are no handy buttons for it in Potlatch. Just to make it clear, I'm not proposing rejecting edits containing designation tags, or anything like that - just encouraging people to use them where known. Most of the general public don't know or care, or just bimble along anything with tarmac whether it's marked footpath or not. I can see that in towns, though I have to admit being a little surprised that out in the country, people aren't aware of path designations. Experts can set additional access tags if they want and need to. IMO the full sets for a particular designation are a pain to remember, large, demonstrably quite difficult to understand in combination, and easy to get wrong. Only two are really essential, though, I think, highway plus designation. foot|bicycle|horse=permissive are nice too, to indicate permissive paths, but not as essential as designation. 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] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
I always use Potlatch an editor, and so the majority of the paths I have added are highway=footpath, unless I know it's designated as a bridleway in which case I've set it as highway=bridleway. If I use a path, but it's not actually signed as a public or otherwise footpath then I think I should use highway=path, but actually tend to just use highway=footpath as it's there for me in Potlatch. Generally for 'countryside' mapping I use JOSM for larger scale edits. Potlatch for smaller detail updates. Each to their own of course. I think JOSM can be setup to use special presets, i.e. for UK tagging presets - although I've never done this myself. Semantically it feels cleaner to use highway=path/track/service depending on width and condition (a tarmac'd driveway I tag as service, a muddy path that is wide enough to fit a car is a track for me, narrower is just a path) and *then* adding designation tags e.g. public_footpath or permissive_footpath (as is around the Hampden estate). In my experience around Bucks, walkers, cyclists and horse riders all use the same paths, so I only add specific access tags when it is a 'NO' (as in a few no cycles signs around here, against mostly in the Hampden Estate area). My dilemma is that essentially all of my walking routes so far are highway=footpath / highway=bridleway with very little designation= (because I haven't done much mapping since I saw designation= being discussed), so changing to a combination of path/track/service designation would be quite a chunk of work. I'm up for doing it, if that's a good thing to do. Certainly best adding the designation where known. Is there any consensus on whether this is a good thing to do or not (yet)? If it is a good thing, then I'd love to see Potlatch updated somehow to allow for this (perhaps changing footpath to be highway=path adding public footpath with highway=path/designation=public_footway), and would be up for doing that piece of work if that helps, as it would really help me. Not sure this will happen as the it too GB specific. Again there are ways to change Potlatch's presets if you run your own instance and edit the config files appropriately. On a minor tangent - is there any pattern or spec around tagging the signposts at all? I'm starting to think it would be useful, as not all junctions have sign posts, and so it could help people know which junction is which when on a new walk. I had a quick search on the wiki, but couldn't find anything (I could be searching for the wrong thing). There is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost Which is rendered on mapnik, eg: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.894405947279346lon=-0.64825295438012698zoom=16layers=B000FTF However I only tend to use it for 'elaborate' or 'special' sign posts, rather than every single signpost everywhere. Think things like this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacqib/359764976/in/pool-21939087@N00/ Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where they are not known. Yes, but no. Yes I agree that it's information we should gather, and anyone more into this thing than a casual mapper probably should. However in order to broaden OSM's appeal we can't demand it at the entry level. Particularly if there are no handy buttons for it in Potlatch. Just to make it clear, I'm not proposing rejecting edits containing designation tags, or anything like that - just encouraging people to use them where known. Most of the general public don't know or care, or just bimble along anything with tarmac whether it's marked footpath or not. I can see that in towns, though I have to admit being a little surprised that out in the country, people aren't aware of path designations. Experts can set additional access tags if they want and need to. IMO the full sets for a particular designation are a pain to remember, large, demonstrably quite difficult to understand in combination, and easy to get wrong. Only two are really essential, though, I think, highway plus designation. foot|bicycle|horse=permissive are nice too, to indicate permissive paths, but not as essential as designation. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 07/05/12 13:19, Stephen Colebourne wrote: As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me. 1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path 2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback. Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by. Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is *detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail later. This. I agree with this *so much*. People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface type are pointless detail to a new mapper. Therefore whatever docs we write should encourage the use of the most expressive single-tag scheme for a thing up front because that enables new users to enter fairly informative data in the most comfortable way for them. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface type are pointless detail to a new mapper. Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where they are not known. I don't see it as a problem for new mappers to understand the meaning of the designation or access tags. They're quite straightforward really! When I walk in a new area I need to know which paths are OK and which are unfortunately off limits. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
-Original Message- From: Andrew Chadwick [mailto:a.t.chadw...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 May 2012 10:38 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject On 07/05/12 13:19, Stephen Colebourne wrote: As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me. 1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path 2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback. Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by. Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is *detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail later. This. I agree with this *so much*. People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface type are pointless detail to a new mapper. Therefore whatever docs we write should encourage the use of the most expressive single-tag scheme for a thing up front because that enables new users to enter fairly informative data in the most comfortable way for them. +1 As mappers (regardless of experience) we are not the authoritative body with respect to access rights and while of course we want to encourage good and complete tagging we should not insist on it. We have always accepted the low hanging fruit approach to adding data and long may that continue. What we need are better tools to help the more experienced mapper identify missing data, especially now that our mapping looks complete from the simple map view. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 11/05/12 10:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote: People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface type are pointless detail to a new mapper. (That was somewhat incautiously worded. Maybe we should make it into a strength, not a weakness is a better rallying cry. Ho hum.) Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where they are not known. Yes, but no. Yes I agree that it's information we should gather, and anyone more into this thing than a casual mapper probably should. However in order to broaden OSM's appeal we can't demand it at the entry level. Particularly if there are no handy buttons for it in Potlatch. Most of the general public don't know or care, or just bimble along anything with tarmac whether it's marked footpath or not. New OSM users are drawn from this population, demonstrably don't record the information, and aren't really fussed about it if we're honest. They can slap down a path, ideally for us a nice intuitive h=footway, and call it a day quite happily. And I have no problem with the data being fairly minimal: itsawiki, after all. Obviously we work on the raw recruits and turn them all into good public-spirited citizen hero mappers striding the land and quelling dragons, like ourselves, but it takes time. Hence my argument that there's an intermediate stage somewhere in there for those levelling up. This is the stage where we should be saying that a sign looking like [photo] means you should add a public_[whatever]way tag in addition, but leave it at that. Experts can set additional access tags if they want and need to. IMO the full sets for a particular designation are a pain to remember, large, demonstrably quite difficult to understand in combination, and easy to get wrong. They're best done either a) in full with the presets, or b) minimally, tagging only the exceptions to what you perceive as the general rule implied by the other tags. I don't see it as a problem for new mappers to understand the meaning of the designation or access tags. They're quite straightforward really! Individually yes; together in a big lump: haha no. Particularly not when the access tags we recommend in the docs have been a bit outdated with everyone fearful of updating them, as has happened in the past. Being honest (and a bit snobby) I'd rather *not* have new users attempt access tags at first if they're more likely to mess things up. When I walk in a new area I need to know which paths are OK and which are unfortunately off limits. Me too, luckily it's normally signposted :D That's OK for the vast majority of map users even if it's a bit pants for data consumers and we should be pushing for designations and access tags in the long run. But let's convey it in a way tailored to the levels of involvement of our users. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 11 May 2012 11:59, Andrew Chadwick a.t.chadw...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/05/12 10:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where they are not known. Yes, but no. Yes I agree that it's information we should gather, and anyone more into this thing than a casual mapper probably should. However in order to broaden OSM's appeal we can't demand it at the entry level. Particularly if there are no handy buttons for it in Potlatch. I could equally claim that information on the surface of paths is absolutely essential for cyclists with road bikes, and that toilet opening hours are absolutely essential for people with weak bladders. In many areas OSM is completely hopeless at accurate routing for cars, motorbikes, HGVs, but we don't stop people adding roads unless they've got every last routing detail correct. Of course more detail is useful, and we can gently encourage and facilitate that through presets in editors and documentation on the wiki. But we shouldn't demand that anybody helpfully adding a footpath or toilet add in every last detail. Regards, 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
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
I could equally claim that information on the surface of paths is absolutely essential for cyclists with road bikes, and that toilet opening hours are absolutely essential for people with weak bladders. In many areas OSM is completely hopeless at accurate routing for cars, motorbikes, HGVs, but we don't stop people adding roads unless they've got every last routing detail correct. +1 I haven't had time to write on the tag voting document, but I did notice the for 'private' bridleway pic, I would probably tag this as a highway = service. This probably more as tag for the render, but in IMHO there's not much difference between a h=service and h=track,surface=asphalt,(or tracktype=grade1). The bonus is the service is currently rendered in Mapnik and Cyclemap etc... Sometimes I think it would be good if OSMers had more focus on aspects that *all* the other map providers don't do (especially OS). As Tom notes above, it's generally impossible even using OS maps to tell if one would like to take a road bike down a Bridleway. One doesn't really want to have to keep accessing the OSM data directly for these bits. If A N renderer or routers showed/considered such detail (as appropriate for eg road bike users, pram/wheel chair pushers, wheelchair users and various use cases) then it would be much more powerful. Also for toilets it is nice to know if they required a fee too! Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 07/05/12 10:34, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote: Andy Streetm...@andystreet.me.uk writes: On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path, designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value. As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if there was a single set of tags worldwide. In my case the consumer of the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/). That makes sense - but the question is, should tagging be optimised for mappers/map editors, or for map consumers, if those things conflict? My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide. The idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and customs is impractical. There are literally hundreds of regions that might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by a geographical region and list of rules. Each consumer of data then needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules. No; only consumers of data who want worldwide coverage (and who care about the tags that vary around the world) would have to do that. And I think that would still be easier than getting mappers worldwide to conform to a rigid tagging system. I'm not sure what I think is the biggest risk to OSM's future but I think attempting to impose an unwieldy system of tags on contributors is right up there. I think a large part of OSM's success so far is due to its simplicity and informality. With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it. With a pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it, search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor. One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers. Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity should be in the writing side and not the reading side. I disagree. Consumers of OSM data should embrace Postel's Law. Besides, rule-based processing is just CPU cycles. Those are far less valuable than OSM contributor brain power. Also, there's no reason data consumers have to use raw OSM data. Someone could post-process OSM to produce dumps that have normalised rights of way information, and publish those files for the benefit of that subset of consumers who happen to care about rights of way being consistent around the world. I think that's a much better way to go than laying down rigid rules for mappers, or running bots that try to bash OSM into the shape needed by a particular consumer. + 1 Mappers are far too precious to lose by making tagging schemes that suit data consumers and not mappers. OSM has grown partly because free tagging has allowed the base of tags to grow as people who are interested in a subject add tags that suit that object. The consensus over tagging is pretty good, just by good sense and a common purpose. I am certainly in favour of using tags that everyone agrees with, but certainly not a restricted list whether that is driven by data consumers, some committee or wiki editors. Even worse are bots or mass edits that flatten diversity from the database in the name of conformity. I view changing someone's carefully chosen tag (not just typos) to something else as vandalism. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me. 1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path 2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback. Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by. Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is *detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail later. Stephen On 7 May 2012 13:10, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: On 07/05/12 10:34, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote: Andy Streetm...@andystreet.me.uk writes: On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path, designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value. As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if there was a single set of tags worldwide. In my case the consumer of the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/). That makes sense - but the question is, should tagging be optimised for mappers/map editors, or for map consumers, if those things conflict? My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide. The idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and customs is impractical. There are literally hundreds of regions that might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by a geographical region and list of rules. Each consumer of data then needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules. No; only consumers of data who want worldwide coverage (and who care about the tags that vary around the world) would have to do that. And I think that would still be easier than getting mappers worldwide to conform to a rigid tagging system. I'm not sure what I think is the biggest risk to OSM's future but I think attempting to impose an unwieldy system of tags on contributors is right up there. I think a large part of OSM's success so far is due to its simplicity and informality. With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it. With a pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it, search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor. One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers. Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity should be in the writing side and not the reading side. I disagree. Consumers of OSM data should embrace Postel's Law. Besides, rule-based processing is just CPU cycles. Those are far less valuable than OSM contributor brain power. Also, there's no reason data consumers have to use raw OSM data. Someone could post-process OSM to produce dumps that have normalised rights of way information, and publish those files for the benefit of that subset of consumers who happen to care about rights of way being consistent around the world. I think that's a much better way to go than laying down rigid rules for mappers, or running bots that try to bash OSM into the shape needed by a particular consumer. + 1 Mappers are far too precious to lose by making tagging schemes that suit data consumers and not mappers. OSM has grown partly because free tagging has allowed the base of tags to grow as people who are interested in a subject add tags that suit that object. The consensus over tagging is pretty good, just by good sense and a common purpose. I am certainly in favour of using tags that everyone agrees with, but certainly not a restricted list whether that is driven by data consumers, some committee or wiki editors. Even worse are bots or mass edits that flatten diversity from
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On a slightly different tangent, how if at all do we have have timed restrictions on access types? As the other day I was walking around the Ridgeway: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.422242618282993lon=-1.8314579782714844zoom=15layers=B000FTF 1. Some byways have permissions of no motorised vehicles in 'winter' (30th Oct to 30th Apr) 2. ATM in OSM it's listed as designation = BOAT For the moment I'll probably just add it as some form of note description. Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
And on another slight different tangent, I've noticed a lot of 'implied surfaces' in both versions eg *Please note*: omitting the surfacehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface =* tag implies it *is unpaved* What's the background for suggesting not providing a surface tag will result in an implied surface. I feel a missing surface tag 'implies' that the surface tag is missing, and nothing more. Jason, ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk writes:
and allows multi-layer rendering such as
that done on Freemap.
Not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? If it's just
designations that make this happen, I think both systems work.
See www.free-map.org.uk and note how the designations are indicated
by a coloured transparent layer while the underlying physical ways
are indicated by the standard OS styles for roads,tracks and
paths.
Having just path, track, or the various types of road mean that the
rules for writing the stylesheet are simpler. However it's no big
deal.
Just to add another data point, I have a customised Mapnik stylesheet
that I use on my websites that replicates the OS style of having the
right of way overlay the physical nature.
For tags of {foot,horse,bicycle}={designated,permissive} on anything
other than highway={path,footwa,bridleway,cycleway} an overlay is
drawn using either a footpath, bridleway or cycleway style.
Description:
http://www.gedanken.org.uk/mapping/custom-maps/
Example:
http://www.gedanken.org.uk/mapping/osm-routes/
If we could modify the default stylesheet then we wouldn't have to
worry about tagging for the renderer on these highway types. An OS
map can be used by walkers, horse riders and cyclist to plan routes
but the default OSM stylesheet produces maps that cannot be used for
this.
For the question about whether highway=footway, highway=bridleway and
highway=path are redundant my vote would be that they are overlapping
rather than duplicates. A highway=bridleway should be assumed to have
no obstructions in it that would stop horse or bicycle traffic while
a highway=footway may do.
--
Andrew.
--
Andrew M. Bishop a...@gedanken.demon.co.uk
http://www.gedanken.org.uk/mapping/
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk writes: On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path, designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value. As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if there was a single set of tags worldwide. In my case the consumer of the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/). My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide. The idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and customs is impractical. There are literally hundreds of regions that might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by a geographical region and list of rules. Each consumer of data then needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules. With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it. With a pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it, search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor. One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers. Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity should be in the writing side and not the reading side. I also fail to see how highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway would help here either. Looking at this[1] wiki page shows all manner of different default permissions dependent on different geographical regions. The only way I can see to completely eradicate this problem would be a full set of access tags (foot=*, horse=*, etc) on every way but that is not something either of us would find desirable. A set of worldwide default permissions would be an alternative to having every way tagged with every possible traffic type. This would then need just a single pre-processor step that can be applied without geographical constraints. -- Andrew. -- Andrew M. Bishop a...@gedanken.demon.co.uk http://www.routino.org/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 03/05/12 21:34, Andy Street wrote: So you are saying that we should tag paths by who uses them but not do the same for tracks. IMHO that is rather inconsistent. Not quite. I'm advancing that one should classify according to the primary use or build when one has sufficient evidence. Schemes using a smaller number of tags to describe an object are preferable if we're writing documentation for new mappers. By the way, h=track is also applied according to a way's primary use or build. The tag is documented as normally being for minor vehicular field access, agricultural use or forest management, and it is also given that they are commonly unpaved and that they are roads. No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing list post regarding other countries and what they might mean by designation=public_footpath. So if I told you there was a way in Hampshire tagged highway=path, designation=public_footpath you'd have no idea if you could walk it? Obviously I would, but how does what one person can infer matter for the general case? I would say that it is not tagged sufficiently to allow generic data consumers which do not have special knowledge of what that local designation=public_footpath means to determine whether it can be walked legally. Big difference. I would also say that tagging it highway=footway, designation=public_footpath instead would say more about the usage or build, but not much more. If it's not a made cycleway or something used by horse riders, then that leaves footway by exclusion in this country, or no mappable path at all. Which would have us tagging things as highway=footway, designation=public_bridleway or highway=bridleway, designation=public_footpath! I fail to see any problem here. There are plenty of public footpaths out there which are well-used private horse gallops, and not every public bridleway has a predominance of horse rider traffic. Perhaps you'd like to tell me how I should map this (and why): http://andystreet.me.uk/osm/canyouguesswhatitisyet.jpg Not really, no. Your mapping is your business except where it directly conflicts with mine, at which point we would have to come to a suitable agreement. On a more practical note, there's not really enough of a view of the ground to determine what those tracks are or even what the surface is, I've almost not visited it myself, and you've purposefully obscured the waymarker, hiding the official intent behind the way's existence. Perhaps you should be asking me how I would tag such a thing based on the available evidence. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: On 03/05/12 21:34, Andy Street wrote: No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing list post regarding other countries and what they might mean by designation=public_footpath. So if I told you there was a way in Hampshire tagged highway=path, designation=public_footpath you'd have no idea if you could walk it? Obviously I would, but how does what one person can infer matter for the general case? It just demonstrates my point that tagging in this manner provides sufficient information to draw such conclusions without the need to clutter up the highway tag. I would say that it is not tagged sufficiently to allow generic data consumers which do not have special knowledge of what that local designation=public_footpath means to determine whether it can be walked legally. Big difference. I would also say that tagging it highway=footway, designation=public_footpath instead would say more about the usage or build, but not much more. I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path, designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value. I also fail to see how highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway would help here either. Looking at this[1] wiki page shows all manner of different default permissions dependent on different geographical regions. The only way I can see to completely eradicate this problem would be a full set of access tags (foot=*, horse=*, etc) on every way but that is not something either of us would find desirable. If it's not a made cycleway or something used by horse riders, then that leaves footway by exclusion in this country, or no mappable path at all. Which would have us tagging things as highway=footway, designation=public_bridleway or highway=bridleway, designation=public_footpath! I fail to see any problem here. There are plenty of public footpaths out there which are well-used private horse gallops, and not every public bridleway has a predominance of horse rider traffic. I thought you were trying to simplify things for newbies. Giving them two values which appear to contradict each other isn't going to help. Perhaps you'd like to tell me how I should map this (and why): http://andystreet.me.uk/osm/canyouguesswhatitisyet.jpg Not really, no. Your mapping is your business except where it directly conflicts with mine, at which point we would have to come to a suitable agreement. On a more practical note, there's not really enough of a view of the ground to determine what those tracks are or even what the surface is, I've almost not visited it myself, and you've purposefully obscured the waymarker, hiding the official intent behind the way's existence. My point here was that a large percentage of the time it can be nigh on impossible to tell a footpath from a bridleway based on physical characteristics alone. I know from previous experience that horses use that path but when I visited there was absolutely no indication (other than the waymarker) of their use. If we tag highway based on designation alone then all we are doing is duplicating data and had I been visiting for the first time using your tag for the primary user rule then I'd assume highway=footway, which would be incorrect. I'm not anti highway=footway/bridleway and have tagged a large number of ways with them in the past. I simply feel that the richer tagging scheme that has evolved since their introduction has made them redundant. What does peeve me though is the attitude that highway=path is somehow wrong and we shouldn't tell newbies about it in case they get into bad habits. Cheers, Andy P.S. It would appear that this thread is at risk of turning into a difference of opinions between two individuals rather than a discussion amongst the wider community. Out of consideration for the other users of this list I will therefore not be making any further replies to this thread. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
P.S. It would appear that this thread is at risk of turning into a difference of opinions between two individuals rather than a discussion amongst the wider community. Out of consideration for the other users of this list I will therefore not be making any further replies to this thread. To add a third individual to the discussion, after avoiding it previously but having had plenty of wine this evening... Both of your arguments make sense to me. But I tend to use highway=path for instances where I can't determine any more accurately (a bit like I would use highway=road in cases where I couldn't determine the type (or designation?) of the road). i.e. it is a path which doesn't have any public footpath/etc signs, or any restrictions which prevent say cycles or horses using it, or whatever. So generally I use it on countryside paths without public footpath/etc signs. So for the example of the photograph mentioned in this thread, if I were to map it from imagery I would have to use highway=path as I can't tell anything more just from imagery. In this particular example I'd be tempted to add designation=? cos that's what is on the signpost... But if I had surveyed it and it was signposted as a public footpath I would use highway=footway and designation=public_footpath. An example of where both are used is here: http://osm.org/go/0EH4AB_eL-- The public footpath is signposted around the edge of the field, but it is clear when surveying and even from bing that lots of people cut the corner. One is highway=footway and the other as highway=path. This is not tagging for the renderer, as the two are different (the footway was mapped before designation was widespread - checking history I added the designation tag in v2 but didn’t map the way initially). I can’t put any other tags on the highway=path way, as foot=yes (legal right), foot=designated (signposted as for foot use), etc are not verifiable access tags - as far as I am concerned it is an obvious path on the ground but with no other indications of permissions to use it. Sometimes when mapping from aerial imagery I also add highway=track tags, but can't usually add tracktype without a survey to confirm. So, I find having both tags available useful; in particular highway=path is useful for tagging paths that you have no additional information for, and highway=footway is a handy shorthand for paths that aren't anything other than footpaths. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 02/05/12 16:41, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
One project goal might be to consolidate the various scattered
information on the wiki describing how to map RoWs in the first place.
Come up with *one* consensus approach. We seem to be settling on
designation=* + highway={foot,cycle,bridle}way, by the looks of it (full
disclosure; it's the approach I'm cheerleading).
Contentious point :-) Many, myself included, prefer the
highway=service|track|path|unclassified plus designation=whatever.
We both agree on using designation. This is good.
Would you also agree that h=paths are generally too narrow to use in a
4-wheeled vehicle? After all, that's what h=tracks or the other road
types are intended for.
By now, h=footway seems merely a specialisation of h=path. The _only_
information it adds is that it's normally used by pedestrians, or that
it is built to be used by them. Using the more specific tag conveys
useful information information about the footpath's place in the
transportation network. The same sort of specialisation applies to
h=bridleway and h=cycleway.
Tagging it like this alone is both more useful and less vague than
h=path on its own, and we should be striving for expressiveness when
tagging. I'm not sure why you'd want to use h=path as the primary choice
really. Granted, the definition above has a disjunction, but adding
explicit tags for the physical characteristics or access tags fixes that
up nicely.
There is no such thing as a mappable path which is neither used by
anyone nor currently built up for use by someone.
FWIW, I'll still use h=path for true armchair dunno cases. It's by no
means a useless tag, but to me it signifies that someone, myself
included, hasn't gone and looked and made the distinction.
This way neatly separates out the physical characteristics of the way
and its rights,
Well, h=path has an implicit vehicle width limitation, and so do the
more specific types of it. I'm with you on representing access
explicitly; I don't think you should be inferring anything more than no
motor vehicles for all kinds of path and a single foo=yes for a
highway=fooway, and even then you want to be holding your nose as you
do it.
and allows multi-layer rendering such as
that done on Freemap.
Not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? If it's just
designations that make this happen, I think both systems work.
I do admit to using highway=bridleway as well, but purely to tag for
the renderer and make bridleways appear in a different
colour on the main Mapnik renderer.
You're also being more concise and specific when you do this, so thank
you! And of course: tagging for the renderer (yawn!) is not a bad thing
provided you're not mapping for the foibles of a particular renderer.
--
Andrew Chadwick
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 12:58 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: We both agree on using designation. This is good. +1 Would you also agree that h=paths are generally too narrow to use in a 4-wheeled vehicle? After all, that's what h=tracks or the other road types are intended for. Generally, yes. By now, h=footway seems merely a specialisation of h=path. The _only_ information it adds is that it's normally used by pedestrians, or that it is built to be used by them. Using the more specific tag conveys useful information information about the footpath's place in the transportation network. The same sort of specialisation applies to h=bridleway and h=cycleway. The thing I dislike about footway, bridleway, etc. is that they mix the physical characteristics with access information. Using your definition above I can think of a number of foottracks, bridletracks and even a footunclassified. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
(Where's the path?, Yes it does, doesn't it?) On 03/05/12 14:47, Andy Street wrote: On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 12:58 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: By now, h=footway seems merely a specialisation of h=path. The _only_ information it adds is that it's normally used by pedestrians, or that it is built to be used by them. Using the more specific tag conveys useful information information about the footpath's place in the transportation network. The same sort of specialisation applies to h=bridleway and h=cycleway. The thing I dislike about footway, bridleway, etc. is that they mix the physical characteristics with access information. Using your definition above I can think of a number of foottracks, bridletracks and even a footunclassified. Well, yes and no. If the signed public footpath across Farmer Giles's field has great big ruts along it from the pigswill tractor, I'd say _that's_ the primary defining use, not its signage as a footpath. Plus in my book it's probably too wide and vehicled-up to honestly call a h=path or a h=footway. The dirty secret of the hybrid presets I made a while back is that they happily allow you to make h=tracks (and h=unclassifieds) which are designated public footpaths. They call whatever ends up in highway=* the physical aspect of it, but you're not limited to the suggested values. They're rather complete with the access tags to allow that to happen sanely, but that seems to me to be the right approach for a preset which you're invoking as a shortcut anyway. And that's fine in my book: you tag a highway by whatever usage has the most impact on the character of the way. Heavier vehicles and bigger animals make bigger messes (providing used by evidence), or the ways are built up to suit them (providing built for evidence). Sometimes you see both, if you're lucky. What I'm suggesting for new or intermediate users is having the documentation recommend roughly the same approach (designation and fine-grained highway), minus the plethora of access tags you have to use to represent EW RoWs fully. Keep the instructions really simple to attract new users, and don't confuse them with details about implications or full access values. h=footway and the other more specific kinds of h=path fit into this structure best; they're really simple, and make the information that new users can gather as useful as possible very minimally. h=path is somewhat useless unless it's used as a genuine dunno value like h=road, and we shouldn't be recommending it. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 18:02 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: The thing I dislike about footway, bridleway, etc. is that they mix the physical characteristics with access information. Using your definition above I can think of a number of foottracks, bridletracks and even a footunclassified. Well, yes and no. If the signed public footpath across Farmer Giles's field has great big ruts along it from the pigswill tractor, I'd say _that's_ the primary defining use, not its signage as a footpath. Plus in my book it's probably too wide and vehicled-up to honestly call a h=path or a h=footway. This hypothetical track follows the route of an ancient pathway and is used more by the plethora of dog walkers from the nearby village than by Farmer Giles. Surely by your logic this should be a foottrack? What I'm suggesting for new or intermediate users is having the documentation recommend roughly the same approach (designation and fine-grained highway), minus the plethora of access tags you have to use to represent EW RoWs fully. Sure, unless there is a TRO, or similar anomaly, then it is sensible not to add access tags as all you're doing is duplicating what is already implied by the designation tag. Keep the instructions really simple to attract new users, and don't confuse them with details about implications or full access values. h=footway and the other more specific kinds of h=path fit into this structure best; they're really simple, and make the information that new users can gather as useful as possible very minimally. h=path is somewhat useless unless it's used as a genuine dunno value like h=road, and we shouldn't be recommending it. Why is path useless? What exactly does highway=footway, designation=public_footpath tell you that highway=path, designation=public_footpath doesn't? If anything I'd say that highway=footway etc. are damaging as it duplicates what we already record in the access/designation tags. It is also confusing to new users that need to remember that at track and above highway is the physical characteristics only whilst below it is physical and access. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
[... (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad ...] On 03/05/12 19:11, Andy Street wrote: This hypothetical track follows the route of an ancient pathway and is used more by the plethora of dog walkers from the nearby village than by Farmer Giles. Surely by your logic this should be a foottrack? No, unless it's defined somewhere and in widespread use. If it's wide enough to drive a 4-wheeled vehicle along, and people do, it quacks like a highway=track, and should be tagged as such. If people don't drive it, or if it's narrower, it it quacks like a highway=footway, but I'd really need to see it. Sure, unless there is a TRO, or similar anomaly, then it is sensible not to add access tags as all you're doing is duplicating what is already implied by the designation tag. No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing list post regarding other countries and what they might mean by designation=public_footpath. h=path is somewhat useless unless it's used as a genuine dunno value like h=road, and we shouldn't be recommending it. Why is path useless? What exactly does highway=footway, designation=public_footpath tell you that highway=path, designation=public_footpath doesn't? That it is _used enough_ on foot to leave a mark, or is _made to be suitable_ for use by foot. Also that it isn't more something else... highway=path is sort of useless on the ground because it is normally possible to figure out what a path primarily is by looking at it. If it's not a made cycleway or something used by horse riders, then that leaves footway by exclusion in this country, or no mappable path at all. If anything I'd say that highway=footway etc. are damaging as it duplicates what we already record in the access/designation tags. No. The legal classification is not stored in the highway tag. Access tags can add to the rather bare set of implications present for footway (and I rather disagree with inferring foot=designated for them; in this messy and unplanned country you'll often find a perfectly good footpath with no set of markers. For shame.) It is also confusing to new users that need to remember that at track and above highway is the physical characteristics only No. highway=primary for example carries an documented implicit right of access for motor cars and HGVs, and all highways imply access=yes (unhelpfully, IMO). whilst below it is physical and access. If anything, above track they should carry fewer physical implications than below. The classifications for roads are much more fluid in practice and (theoretically should) pay greater attention to the road's importance in the transport grid. [... (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance.] -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 02/05/12 16:41, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
One project goal might be to consolidate the various scattered
information on the wiki describing how to map RoWs in the first place.
Come up with *one* consensus approach. We seem to be settling on
designation=* + highway={foot,cycle,bridle}way, by the looks of it (full
disclosure; it's the approach I'm cheerleading).
Contentious point :-) Many, myself included, prefer the
highway=service|track|path|unclassified plus designation=whatever.
We both agree on using designation. This is good.
Would you also agree that h=paths are generally too narrow to use in a
4-wheeled vehicle? After all, that's what h=tracks or the other road
types are intended for.
Yes. path for a narrow path impassable by a 4x4, track for one which is.
By now, h=footway seems merely a specialisation of h=path. The _only_
information it adds is that it's normally used by pedestrians, or that
it is built to be used by them. Using the more specific tag conveys
useful information information about the footpath's place in the
transportation network. The same sort of specialisation applies to
h=bridleway and h=cycleway.
Possibly for cycleway, though if I wanted to be purist I'd probably tag them as
highway=path; surface=asphalt; bicycle=designated.
However I'm generally happy with highway=cycleway as a de-facto standard,
seeing as they are so common. However there seems little point for
highway=bridleway other
than t*g f*r t*e r**r. Most bridleways are *not* designed for horses.
They are simply public rights of way for which horses have rights other than
pedestrians. A few horse-only tracks do exist, I agree, but not enough to
warrant a separate value for highway.
Likewise footway has become a kind-of de-facto standard in towns but again the
purist in me would want to use highway=path; surface=asphalt or similar.
There is no such thing as a mappable path which is neither used by
anyone nor currently built up for use by someone.
But most paths have either a designation (in which case, use the designation
tag) or have permissive access for one or more types of transport.
In which case, the designation, foot, horse and bicycle tags will cover it.
FWIW, I'll still use h=path for true armchair dunno cases. It's by no
means a useless tag, but to me it signifies that someone, myself
included, hasn't gone and looked and made the distinction.
Not to me - it suggests a path wide enough to take pedestrians, bikes and
horses, and not wide enough to take 4x4.
and allows multi-layer rendering such as
that done on Freemap.
Not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? If it's just
designations that make this happen, I think both systems work.
See www.free-map.org.uk and note how the designations are indicated by a
coloured transparent layer
while the underlying physical ways are indicated by the standard OS styles
for roads,tracks and paths.
Having just path, track, or the various types of road mean that the rules for
writing the stylesheet are simpler.
However it's no big deal.
Nick
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 20:08 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: On 03/05/12 19:11, Andy Street wrote: This hypothetical track follows the route of an ancient pathway and is used more by the plethora of dog walkers from the nearby village than by Farmer Giles. Surely by your logic this should be a foottrack? No, unless it's defined somewhere and in widespread use. If it's wide enough to drive a 4-wheeled vehicle along, and people do, it quacks like a highway=track, and should be tagged as such. So you are saying that we should tag paths by who uses them but not do the same for tracks. IMHO that is rather inconsistent. Sure, unless there is a TRO, or similar anomaly, then it is sensible not to add access tags as all you're doing is duplicating what is already implied by the designation tag. No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing list post regarding other countries and what they might mean by designation=public_footpath. So if I told you there was a way in Hampshire tagged highway=path, designation=public_footpath you'd have no idea if you could walk it? h=path is somewhat useless unless it's used as a genuine dunno value like h=road, and we shouldn't be recommending it. Why is path useless? What exactly does highway=footway, designation=public_footpath tell you that highway=path, designation=public_footpath doesn't? That it is _used enough_ on foot to leave a mark, or is _made to be suitable_ for use by foot. Also that it isn't more something else... highway=path is sort of useless on the ground because it is normally possible to figure out what a path primarily is by looking at it. Yup, it's a path! If it's not a made cycleway or something used by horse riders, then that leaves footway by exclusion in this country, or no mappable path at all. Which would have us tagging things as highway=footway, designation=public_bridleway or highway=bridleway, designation=public_footpath! Perhaps you'd like to tell me how I should map this (and why): http://andystreet.me.uk/osm/canyouguesswhatitisyet.jpg Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
Peter Rounce wrote: In view of recent interest in UK rights of way, should we set up a wiki project, possibly at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/RightsOfWay If you do that what would be helpful would be to include some reference to the other wiki pages that already contain England and Wales rights of way info and explain why this one is different. I get confused every time I venture in there. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 02/05/12 12:38, Peter Rounce wrote:
In view of recent interest in UK rights of way, should we set up a wiki
project, possibly at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/RightsOfWay
It would seem to be a good addition to the current UK projects.
Are you planning to organise this? Thanks!
One caveat re the organisation. There's no such thing as a UK right of
way. There are Scottish ones, NI ones, and England-and-Wales ones; all
somewhat different. Do you intend to cover them all?
Since long-distance footpaths and Sustrans paths have their own
projects, perhaps the high-level multi-country/county networks are
already spoken for. Still, I've no objection to an umbrella UK-wide
group for PRoWs of all kinds, provided someone states what the general
goals of the project should be, and how its existence would contribute
to the map database.
One project goal might be to consolidate the various scattered
information on the wiki describing how to map RoWs in the first place.
Come up with *one* consensus approach. We seem to be settling on
designation=* + highway={foot,cycle,bridle}way, by the looks of it (full
disclosure; it's the approach I'm cheerleading).
We could certainly do with more research and write-ups of RoWs for each
of the four countries. Classification work, photos of the sorts of
signage and paths a mapper might encounter. Everything right now is
*very* England-centric, and this ought to be addressed and organised in
terms of practical activities (go out and get me better pictures,
somebody research what a West Hebridean surrey-with-a-fringe-on-topway
is, please).
It would be good to write up how mappers should and should not use old,
OOC sources like NPE to enter rights of way - which didn't exist at
the time, but the NPE and other OS publications probably were used as
the first definitive maps for drawing them up. FWIW, I'm suggesting
highway=path and *nothing more specific* for an NPE bridleway or track
or path, provided Bing concurs. Also strongly suggest encouraging
users to get out and map them properly (... hippy ...), acknowledging
the limitations of armchair mapping.
But fundamentally, OSM is about the database and not its wiki. Is there
anything that can be done to coordinate while encouraging people to get
out and map missing or bad data systematically? Mapping parties,
meetups, for example. If yes, then the project page is probably a good
idea. If no, it's just more wikifiddling and probably a waste of time in
the long run. We already have people working on documentation
improvement, and from experience it's *horribly* easy to get hung up on
RoW nonsense without getting anything useful done...
--
Andrew Chadwick
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
One project goal might be to consolidate the various scattered
information on the wiki describing how to map RoWs in the first place.
Come up with *one* consensus approach. We seem to be settling on
designation=* + highway={foot,cycle,bridle}way, by the looks of it (full
disclosure; it's the approach I'm cheerleading).
Contentious point :-) Many, myself included, prefer the
highway=service|track|path|unclassified plus designation=whatever.
This way neatly separates out the physical characteristics of the way and its
rights, and allows multi-layer rendering such as
that done on Freemap.
I do admit to using highway=bridleway as well, but purely to tag for the
renderer and make bridleways appear in a different
colour on the main Mapnik renderer.
Nick
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
