On Thursday 13 May 2010, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
> Thanks very much for this Robert.
>
> I'd made a start trying to do this myself, but had a steep learning curve
> with PostGIS. My main suggestions (which will make the file bigger) are: a)
> retain the original centroid values (these are nea
Mike Harris wrote:
> Richard - good thought - I hadn't thought about using a designation
> tag without a highway tag to avoid the rendering - it might solve my
> problem of unwalkable public rights of way in forests around here.
Contact your local council. They have a legal duty to enforce
acces
On Thursday 13 May 2010, Tim François wrote:
> Looks super interesting. I've been trying to do something similar but for
> local areas, rather than GB as a whole to make is useable for single mapper
I could do some extracts of areas within bounding boxes.
> As for releasing the data to the rest
Thanks very much for this Robert.
I'd made a start trying to do this myself, but had a steep learning curve with
PostGIS. My main suggestions (which will make the file bigger) are: a) retain
the original centroid values (these are near as dammit a primary key); and b)
keep one or more of the d
Robert,
Looks super interesting. I've been trying to do something similar but for local
areas, rather than GB as a whole to make is useable for single mapper. See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bath/OSLocator_Comparison - the method is
towards the bottom of the page. It's certainly not as c
+1
On 19:59, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
If you've got reasonable non-copyright evidence that there's a PROW
across the field, use designation=public_footpath. If there's a path
that people seem to use, use the highway=path tag (or some other
highway tag if you prefer), and maybe a surface tag. You ca
Richard - good thought - I hadn't thought about using a designation tag
without a highway tag to avoid the rendering - it might solve my problem
of unwalkable public rights of way in forests around here.
On 19:59, Richard Mann wrote:
If you've got reasonable non-copyright evidence that there's
I would record both - but only if I walked both with GPS in hand - and
add status where I know it - as per my previous response to Ian.
On 19:59, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
Ian Spencer wrote:
Sent: 13 May 2010 12:17 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Defin
Ian
I am on board with the concept and the need to sort out our tagging.
However, your category (1) - the OS version - has nothing official about
it. The OS themselves include a disclaimer on all of their maps so far
as the line of rights of way are concerned. The ONLY official line is
the on
On Thursday 13 May 2010, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> What about using double metaphone for finding spelling disagreements?
>
> Emilie Laffray
It's something I looked at briefly and depending on how many error reports I
get I may look at it again if I find lots of phonetic-type errors that aren't
ma
On 13 May 2010 17:23, Robert Scott wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been running some countrywide comparisons of the recently released OS
> Locator against the streets in OSM, using fuzzy string matching and the
> supplied bounding boxes to attempt to match each street in each dataset to
> one in the ot
Hi all,
I've been running some countrywide comparisons of the recently released OS
Locator against the streets in OSM, using fuzzy string matching and the
supplied bounding boxes to attempt to match each street in each dataset to one
in the other. It's worked pretty well for most areas I tested
>>If you've got reasonable non-copyright evidence that there's a PROW
>>across the field, use designation=public_footpath. If there's a path
>>that people seem to use, use the highway=path tag (or some other
>>highway tag if you prefer), and maybe a surface tag. You can have a
>>OSM way with just a
Whoops - resending as I used the wrong account at my end and got bumped
by the lists moderator - silly me!
Original Message
Subject:Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 15:44:31 +0100
From: Mike Harris
To: Andy Robinson (blackad
Hello everyone,
A reminder on behalf of Andy Street that there is a mapping party this
weekend (both days) at Andover, Hampshire.
A bit of background (from the wiki page): The county of Hampshire is
increasingly well mapped in OpenStreetMap with good coverage of a number
of towns and cities a
Your non-copyright source is probably a fingerpost (verifiable on the
ground). If people want to go round translating the legal documents
into where the path ought to be on the ground, then there's no great
harm in it, and it's certainly verifiable.
Of course, this will get a bit circular when peo
Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] wrote:
>Sent: 13 May 2010 2:00 PM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Cc: Ian Spencer; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest,
>Vol 44, Issue 19)
>
>If you've got reasonable
If you've got reasonable non-copyright evidence that there's a PROW
across the field, use designation=public_footpath. If there's a path
that people seem to use, use the highway=path tag (or some other
highway tag if you prefer), and maybe a surface tag. You can have a
OSM way with just a designati
Ian Spencer wrote:
>Sent: 13 May 2010 12:17 PM
>To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest,
>Vol 44, Issue 19)
>
>I think it would be useful to have a think about how we might tag
>validated definitive ways in addition to the public foot
I think it would be useful to have a think about how we might tag
validated definitive ways in addition to the public footpath recognising
that there are potentially 3 different versions of a path:
1) The official published rights of way - say from OS.
2) OSM interpretation of rights of way (sou
Mike,
A very comprehensive reply, thanks for that. It would be worth having what
you have written on a relevant wiki page as its probably the best write-up
of the arrangements as we know them.
Cheers
Andy
>-Original Message-
>From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>bou
Hi
My understanding of PRoW law is that:
1. The definitive statement (which is prepared by an actual survey on
the ground - not from a map - although it might subsequently be plotted
onto a map) takes precedence over the definitive map where there are
differences between the two. Thus the sta
22 matches
Mail list logo
