Richard Bullock wrote:
Do we *really* need to be tagging national speed limits on individual
ways?
E.g. the vast majority of roads ought to be one of;
*residential roads subject to 30mph
*rural roads subject to NSL
Perhaps we could tag the ones that differ from the above - and let
Stuart Grimshaw wrote:
Some routes stop after a certain time of day, or they follow
a different route at weekends. They follow a different route
for 1 journey before or after school and they go to different
stops because of roadworks.
To keep this information accurate you really would
Peter Miller wrote:
So the proposal is now:
maxspeed:type=GB:national_single|GB:national_dual|GB:motorway|GB:restricted
I may be missing the point on all of this, but:
Why are we doing this?
In OSM we optimise for the mapper, not the data consumer. That means we tag
exceptions, not
Peter Miller wrote:
There is also the difficulty of identifying which country you are in
Nominatim seems to manage. :)
There is current the problem that no one has actually created a look-
up table for the values that can be used by downstream systems
Ah, now, this is where we have
Ed Loach wrote:
Admittedly I have no motorways in the area I map, but I have added
lots of maxspeed tags recently to try and eliminate (or reduce the
number of) mapdust/skobbler missing speed limit bugs.
Gah!
Doing that on national speed limit roads is surely tagging for the
renderer writ
Kai Krueger wrote:
If I am not mistaken, you your self have said that you would rather
use Ordinance Survey data then OpenStreetMap data, despite being
an absolute OSM enthusiast. And if I remember correctly, this was
not only due to licensing, but also because of ease of use?
Indeed, but
Robert Whittaker wrote:
I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because
I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData
In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future
non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the
Contributor
Dave F. wrote:
On 18/04/2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future
non-OS-derived edits, you do so from another account with assent to the
Contributor Terms.
Did you mean *non*-OS edits? If so could you expand on that please
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
So I take it that now I've signed I can't contribute any more OS stuff?
I believe you can and am continuing to use OpenData as often as I did before
(that's not very often). Robert believes you can't and has explained why
in this thread.
there do seem to be slightly
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
--
Peter Miller wrote:
Anyone else getting this and have any other information or work-rounds?
It's actually an API issue rather than a P2 issue. P2 is simply saying
either the API refused to send any data or I couldn't get any response
from the API. Tom has recently committed a change that will
Ed Avis wrote:
The general practice in this country is to use footway for paved paths in
cities and path for muddier countryside ones (or, perhaps, through city
parks).
Um, no it isn't. There is absolutely no consensus for using =path in the
countryside rather than =footway. I strongly
On 06/05/2011 08:13, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Am I right that you can embed P2 into other websites and connect it to
the live API?
Yep. See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch_2/Deploying_Potlatch_2 .
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Martin wrote:
Sounds like they are trying to reinvent OSM, but for waterways only.
Perhaps people with particular knowledge of waterways in OSM might
wish to contact them?
See comments at
Tom Chance wrote:
I completely agree that the tools aren't there yet, but could they
not have used OSM for their database?
In theory, yes. But there are huge costs to that, too. The effort
required to work with the community, and in particular, through the
tagging minefield. The extra
Peter Miller wrote:
It does however seem disappointing for them to be duplicating
some a lot of work.
I agree that the OSM data is not perfect however it is good
and could be even better very easily.
AIUI they're not duplicating work. This is a towpath condition project,
not a map the
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Perhaps you missed this part of my post (quoting BW):
A pilot project in London is already:
mapping comprehensive data on access points, barriers, facilities
and public transport as well as information on the surface type,
average width and
I note an increasing number of roads tagged with ref=Cnumber:
http://osm.org/go/euF7qf93-
http://osm.org/go/eu6CM0IS-
etc.
Leaving aside for now the question of sourcing, I feel a little uneasy
about these being rendered on the map. Anyone using the map as, well, a
Kev js1982 wrote:
Some C (and U) roads are signed apparently - see
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/
Indeed - a tiny number, and of the list at
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/signs.shtml, quite a few seem to be
temporary or works signs (i.e. more for local council edification than
for general
Ben Robbins wrote:
Also, I have no idea how to take this to talk-gb, except by simply
replying there not here, and breaking up a string of responses. I did
however justify why it's here, which your welcome to read. I'm still
struggling some what with getting these replies in the right place,
Hello all,
As some of you might know, I used to work for British Waterways editing
their consumer website, Waterscape.com. We also put together a bunch of
other waterway websites while I was there, one of which was for the Severn
Way long-distance path.
Unfortunately, what with public sector
TimSC wrote:
With complete lists of addresses, we can go and find exact positions
of these services. I am still unsure if this is compatible with the
relicensing.
If you go out and find the exact position of a service, with a piece of
paper and a pen (or a GPS or whatever), that's your
TimSC wrote:
On 07/06/11 14:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
You don't need to put stuff into OSM to make it mashable-uppable. Most
competent licences will have a Collective Work/Database provision to
enable this.
While this this strictly true it is sometimes hard to associate
external records
TimSC wrote:
Straw man.
[...]
Sigh.
[...]
It is ridiculous
[...]
I guess I should not surprised you can't see the benefits
[...]
This seems to be a common thread of your arguments - you make wild claims
Fair enough. It's fairly evident you don't see stuff on the same wavelength
as I do.
Graham Stewart wrote:
So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used
on a restricted area
There is a section of the relevant wiki page where people can request areas:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot#List_of_requested_places
Note the column for Links to consultation
Steve Coast wrote:
Could you cite the evidence?
Have you Merkins sorted out how you're classifying roads and tagging their
numbers yet?
(if that's just general incompetence rather than import-related malaise feel
free to correct me ;) )
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Graham Stewart wrote:
This keeps getting raised and I'm not sure how true it is.
If you import data into an area that already has an active community, you
likely won't damage the community (though you may piss them off). OTOH, you
probably don't _need_ to import data because there's already an
Peter Miller wrote:
According to OSM Mapper Worcester has been developing nicely over a
couple of years.
Fyi, the most active mapper is this srbrook. Mapper since: 14 October
2009 at 20:30 (over 1 year ago). Description: I'm Steve and have been
mapping in the south Worcester, UK area since
Richard Mann wrote:
Saw a new Onward Travel Poster at Oxford. Nice map. Presumably
a similar one at most other railway stations. Lots of detail,
including some footpaths that have a very familar shape...
Nice attribution. To OS.
Yes. This is supposedly a national initiative, but I've only
Graham Stewart wrote:
So again you are basically arguing that we should avoid
completing the map because having a patchy incomplete map is
what brings in contributors?
No, I'm not.
I'm arguing that completing the map by survey creates a community who will
go on to improve and maintain the
Graham Jones wrote:
setting up mapnik and all its dependencies is quite daunting
This week I've seen something that gives near-Mapnik quality rendering with,
hopefully, near-trivial installation, configuration and system demands. I
think one comment on IRC was zomg which succinctly sums it up.
Graham Stewart wrote:
This is no doubt true.
But surely having an area that has been *surveyed* to 100% road name
completion is just as likely to put off any new contributors as one that
was *traced* to 100%?
(i.e. not very in my opinion)
I don't think so. Again, the difference is that you're
Ed Loach wrote:
I can imagine the little M stickers being printed now...
For those curious as to what these maps look like, here's one I photographed
last week:
http://www.systemeD.net/temp/onward_travel_falmouth.jpg
(4.6Mb file)
Compare and contrast with http://osm.org/go/erU5Lvdkm- .
Peter J Stoner wrote:
Thank you for the photo. It is the first of the new posters I
have seen so it has helped me to check the Traveline and
NextBuses references!
:) They're good posters, I like them (though the cartography is a bit...
utilitarian, shall we say?).
This use of OSM shows
Ed Avis wrote:
But you are leaving out the third possibility which is an area stuck at
40% completion, which doesn't have a vibrant community either.
Oh, indeed. But if we were to put as much effort into marketing OSM and
improving our tools as we do into writing and indeed discussing bots,
Peter Miller wrote:
Fyi we are doing some investigation in ITO into adding OS
VectorDistrict 'road missing' data on the OS Locator tiles or possibly
onto an alternative map layer. The aim being to make tracing of roads
easier
[...]
At a later stage one might consider extending the bot to also
Peter Miller wrote:
ITO are probably not the best people to set up maintain simple mirrors
of existing content. Are there not 100 sites where a mirror could be
set up and maintained? Why is the OS site not sufficient anyway?
The OS site
a) offers download-only access behind an e-mail
Peter Miller wrote:
If this is what you want then it clearly isn't a simple FTP mirror
Let's not overcomplicate things. :)
All that is needed is that someone
a) downloads all the OS VectorMap District files
b) unzips them
c) places the unzipped shapefiles on an FTP server somewhere
d) copies
Ed Loach wrote:
I refer mainly to reprojecting from OSGB to WGS84, which
required manual tweaks to every .prj file [1]. Would
this need doing before upload, or is it something that is now
(but not deployed yet) automated within Potlatch 2?
Potlatch 2's improved (not deployed yet) shapefile
Craig Loftus wrote:
I'm not very familiar with projections so a little more clarity would
be useful for me. As potlatch 'understands' OSGB, is loading an OSBG
shp file any more expensive than loading a WGS84 shp file?
A little. P2 has to reproject each point on first load. But we're using an
Craig Loftus wrote:
Richard can you give the following URLs a go?
Thanks for setting that up - really encouraging. But good news and bad, I'm
afraid.
The good news is that P2 can get the files from the server no problem. The
bad news is that Ordnance Survey appear to have broken it.
When I was
Adam Hoyle wrote:
another email I missed. d'oh.
this also sounds exceedingly good - any idea where I should look to
make sure I don't miss it?
http://kothic.org/
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Hi all,
I'm pleased to announce Potlatch 2.2 is live.
New features include:
- Greatly improved vector background layer support (load shapefiles in
the background and bring elements through one-by-one), including
reprojection from OSGB
- Control-drag an area to select multiple elements
-
Steve Doerr wrote:
I think the main symptom was the contents of the left panel
disappearing: at this point, I would normally click Save, then
(once the Save was complete) click View, then Edit again to
start a new changeset.
If you can provide steps to reproduce, we can take a look at it.
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF
board members, so you then can make an official statement
about Michael's post.
I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something
faintly amusing about the appeals to an
Robert Whittaker wrote:
That's my position and you can take it or leave it. I really don't
see how flaming me in this list is helpful to the community.
Blimey. It was meant as a good-natured jokey e-mail, a gentle dig at best.
But if it helps, the Archbishop of Canterbury's house in Charlbury
Mike Collinson wrote:
I would like to thank the Ordnance Survey for their kind consideration
and the speed in which they were able to give a response.
...and thank you, Mike and Henk, for taking this on.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Tom Chance wrote:
So I suspect it's potentially breaching copyright, and a matter of
judgement as to whether it's worth the risk. For example, if you
were copying in data from a commercial web site whose business
model was based around that data (like a listing of pubs) you
might get
David Earl wrote:
Even then, to infringe database copyright under UK law you would have to
copy a substantial part of the database. Checking or obtaining a few
names against such a list isn't database copyright infringement
Oh, absolutely. The thing I've always been anxious about, though, is
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance
Survey that they're happy for their content to be
distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL
combination).
I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements
over and
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
In the context of OSM, the fact that the contents will be under
DbCL will enable users to make use insubstantial extracts
without having to provide any attribution or share-alike or anything
else.
Again, as I said, insubstantial is statute law - both the EU
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
So if I understand what you're saying correctly, because there
are already provisions in UK law (and possibly elsewhere) that
allow you to make use of insubstantial parts of a work in any
way you want without infringing any copyright or database rights,
we
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few
weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this
at their most recent meeting...
They have now done so!
In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows:
The intent of the
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
In the mean time, could I suggest that other mappers
don't start replacing my contributions just yet.
Speaking personally: sure. I'm happy to leave your stuff alone for a week. I
think replacing Etienne's contributions in the areas I'm interested in will
keep me
Steve Coast wrote:
Hi Robert
Was this resolved with (I believe) Henk's email?
Robert and Steve - has there been any progress on this yet?
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6633300.html
Sent from the Great Britain
Jo Walsh wrote:
A way to drag base layer like in JOSM.
Hold Space and drag.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-imagery-alignment-in-Potlatch-2-tp6638302p6638356.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ed Avis wrote:
Yet again we see the lazy armchair mappers trying to 'map' areas they have
never visited. Instead of wasting time with dubious-quality Ordnance
Survey
maps why don't we organize some mapping parties and community outreach
to the penguins?
That's a terrific idea!
Peter Miller wrote:
Correct. I think the actual message is 'couldn't load the map'. Sometimes
it will load the data eventually if one persists, but generally it is
better to give it a rest for a few hours and try later. It only occurs
using Potlatch 2 btw, Potlatch 1 still works fine and
Mark S wrote:
Looking at the wiki (route=road) it seems to suggest a relation can
be used here.
Road route relations are useful in the US, and some other countries, where a
section of road can belong to two routes.
In the UK, each road can only belong to one route (i.e. an unambiguous ref=
Colin Smale wrote:
* there are lots of stretches of roads with (ostensibly) two UK
numbers (segment is shared between two routes)
Nope - there aren't. That's a popular misconception.
Where (for example) the A11 disappears into the A14 east of Cambridge, for
example, the road really is only
The Welsh Government is creating a 850-mile Coast Path, to incorporate
long-established routes such as the Pembrokeshire Coast Path, more
recent ones such as the Ceredigion Coast Path, and new sections. It's
set to open in May 2012.
Work seems to be progressing well:
Brian Prangle wrote:
what do you call places where they make cider/perry?
awesome
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Drinking-Map-of-UK-tp6945690p6946350.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Generally speaking, is it best to use the full URL;
UKNIWM_URL = http://www.ukniwm.org.uk/server/show/conMemorial.2049
or the unique ID part:
UKNIWM_ID = 2049
Generally we have taken the approach that such data should not be included
in OSM; we are not a mashup centre for
Graham Jones wrote:
This will inevitably be subjective
So we don't do it. :)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
From a given scenario, a tag/value combination is verifiable if and only if
independent users when observing the same feature would make the same
observation every
Someoneelse wrote:
I believe that it's both, actually. It was the Bass Museum, then
got closed and eventually reopened under its current name
after the musical chairs enforced by the MMC when Interbrew
had to sell Bass to Coors.
FWIW I think it was the Bass Museum; then the Coors Visitor
Craig Loftus wrote:
Do make comments/suggestions on the wiki pages... the tags we're
using are still evolving.
I have changed craft|industrial=cider_house to craft|industrial=cider
(and the same for perry).
A cider house is a pub that predominantly serves cider, not a producer.
There is no
Steve Doerr wrote:
The Oxford English Dictionary got it wrong then:
*cider-house* n. a building in which cider is made.
Far be it for me to criticise the august OED (though I'm more of a Chambers
man), but yes, it did.
http://www.thecoronationtap.com/ - Clifton's original, and still it's only,
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Aston Manor Brewery in Birmingham no longer makes ales; just cider, on
an industrial scale - yet retains the word Brewery in its name. :-(
I'd argue it doesn't really make anything recognisable as cider, either,
but that's a whole different argument. ;)
(not quite fair -
Craig Loftus wrote:
We have real cider now as well?
Yep, although I think it's less of a binary yes/no than with real ale.
CAMRA has a lengthy definition at
http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=aboutciderandperry , though it's worth
noting that cider-drinkers generally don't regard CAMRA with
Hello all,
We seem to be ending up with wildly conflicting use of 'lcn=yes',
'lcn_ref=*', and similar tags across Britain.
In London, these tags are used as you would expect - to map the
signposted London Cycle Network. It's pretty much in keeping with ncn=
and rcn= tagging.
In Worcester,
Someoneelse wrote:
Thanks Andy. Makes sense to me. Do you know if there is anywhere
a list of proposed Sustrans routes (not based on OS mapping
hopefully) that could be used for fact-checking some of the more
wishful proposed cycle ways in OSM?
Andy R and I have a list of three-digit NCN
Richard Mann wrote:
There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put
up in various places.
Not sure which stickers you're referring to, but IIRC Sustrans 'Ranger'
stickers are approved for use by almost all highway authorities in England,
including Oxfordshire. (The two I'm
Pawel Stankiewicz wrote:
I would like to find out which Wiki articles states:
only run automated edits if you know what you're
doing and how to repair any damage you might cause
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
If you don't know how to revert an import, chances are you
Pawel Stankiewicz wrote:
If you don't know how to revert an import, chances are you
shouldn't be doing the import in the first place.
Chances are something very different from a ban.
No. You're misunderstanding English idiom.
I've now edited the page for the benefit of other people who have
Google have finally done it: they've switched from TeleAtlas to Google
map data in the UK.
Set your stopwatches for the first newspaper story about man drives off
cliff - '...but Google told me it was a road'!. Some of their choices
are, shall we say, a little heroic.
cheers
Richard
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
(I'm also keen BTW to deal with a possible licencing issue here.
A long-standing contributor has mapped many footpaths in
Hampshire already but has not signed up to the CTs. Naturally
I'm keen not to see all his hard work lost, and TBH, while I'm
licence-neutral,
Graham Jones wrote:
This is one where it is certainly possible to import the data, but to
do it manually is going to be a huge amount of effort, and I wonder
if it is really worth the effort?
I think it is, yes. If I may be so immodest to repeat myself from the IRC
quotes page on the wiki:
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
OK. I get the impression that if he PDs his edits then they can be
carried through; can you confirm this is the case?
Any data (whether OSM edits* or a third-party source) that are declared
to be public domain, i.e. free of rights, can indeed be included in
OSM post-1st
Ed Avis wrote:
In some parts of the country there are waterways traced from out-of-
copyright OS maps or from Street View tiles. Getting the shapes from
OS VectorMap will certainly be an improvement on that.
Absolutely. Some of the tracing from NPE appears to have been done either
from the
Pawel Stankiewicz wrote:
I wonder who can know this maze of channels in such
degree (s)he could improve significantly a long-term
work of professionals from OS.
Someone like the guy who wrote
www.localboating.co.uk/The%20Walton%20Backwaters.pdf , perhaps?
Richard
--
View this message in
this relation from scratch
would be a *lot* of work, as it covers lane and paths across
hundreds of miles.
There is no chuffing way I am allowing our NCN coverage to go to pot on 1st
April! Least of all Lon Las Cymru (NCN 8):
http://vimeo.com/6623643
Anyone who can spot when Richard
Peter Miller wrote:
Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for
this features on the basis that we have moved them
and edited all the surrounding features?
Yes, there is - tag it with odbl=clean.
To replace a single node that forms a junction might
involve unstitching 3
Michael Collinson wrote:
+1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean
Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up,
it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and
which is being used by status visualisations such as OSM Inspector. :)
cheers
Richard
David Earl wrote:
Why does pressing the keys make any
difference whatsoever? The original contributor doesn't own the
copyright in the name, only their contribution, and by marking it
odbl clean I'm making an alternative contribution which asserts
the source is now legitimate.
I think
Lester Caine wrote:
OK how many of you are having trouble editing for
more than 10 minutes? I've lost as much work as
I've done this evening with potlach just freezing :(
I had the same problem at the weekend, but put it
down to finger trouble, know I know it is software.
If you _know_
John Sturdy wrote:
The slowdown I notice is on a single-core 512Mb machine, and I
haven't looked into full system statistics for it but the behaviour
is consistent with thrashing virtual memory... after editing for a
while, drawing ways with the mouse gets very slow (almost freezes);
I
Jason Cunningham wrote:
Thanks Mike, I'll now start having a proper go at replacing some of
Guys data. A monumental task and I think I'll just start with the
important roads.
A very curious situation, as Guy appears to still be mapping in OSM, just
with a new account (GUY, all-caps:
John Sturdy wrote:
Another oddity I've noticed (also probably deep within Flash) is that
P2 sometimes either doesn't respond to a keypress but does to the
corresponding mouse click, or just responds much slower to the
keypress. (I notice this with add in advanced mode, versus the +
key.)
Andy Allan wrote:
[2] Originally meaning this is a legally declared 'Public
Footpath', it was ambiguously confused with a general
legal right of walking (e.g. on a bridleway). Automatic
inclusion on all footpaths of any type by potlatch1 for
a number of years
[Brief historical footnote:
Now mapped from the source to Bristol. Thanks to everyone who did part
of it and especially Steve Brook and Ed Loach for filling the gap near
Bewdley.
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Hi all,
In order to assist remapping in the South-West, I've uploaded a bunch of
OS-derived shapefiles each containing all the roads in a 10km x 10km
area. You can use Potlatch 2 to bring these geometries into the map,
saving tracing work.
To load:
1. Open Potlatch 2 at the required area.
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
There is lots that could be improved about this workflow:
implementing TagTransform to remap tags automatically [...]
I'm very very unlikely to have much time to do this before
1st April
Oh, ok then.
P2 now supports MapCSS-based tag transformations. Or in English
I've posted a how-to at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/Potlatch_2_vector_background_layers
and uploaded VectorMap District roads for ST and SY, so now the whole of
Devon, Cornwall and Somerset should be included.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Do we have anyone who wants to try to secure some OSM
involvement in this:
I've done a bit of mapping of the WCP, with each county section as a
separate relation, all grouped together into a Wales Coast Path
super-relation:
We change to the new licence in just under a month's time, so it's a
good time to look at the current state of the UK. What's likely not to
be carried through to the new database?
The good news is that the UK is in a very healthy state overall. Just
under 99% of nodes will survive (98.68%
1301 - 1400 of 1720 matches
Mail list logo
