Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

On 07/02/17 19:19, Marco Boeringa wrote: Lastly, the lack of proper multipolygon creation, means that other types of renderers and styles than Carto, and GIS's like QGIS and ArcGIS, that do not stack features based on size but need multipolygons to deal with polygon-within-polygon problems, have

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Public Rights of Way mapping is one of my OSM hobbies, and I've done quite a bit in my local area of Norfolk and Suffolk. I've also put together a tool to compare OSM coverage with official (OGL-licensed) data from the two councils: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . (As an aside, I'd b

[Talk-GB] OSM UK: Notice of general meeting

All, The notice of the first general meeting of OSM UK has been sent out to all members. We have a provision for non-members to attend (AoA Article 39), thus here is the notice details for those who did not receive it. I will find a way to share the dial-in number and passcode (keep an eye on our

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

On 2017-02-07 20:15, Adam Snape wrote: > Colin, the Ramblers' 'Blue Book' is a standard recommended guide to law and > practice. Sadly, I've lent my copy out so can't quote chapter and verse but > it does cover the right to deviate and also the right to abate a public > nuisance. The general gi

[Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

Hi all, I noticed that in Wales, large parts of the Snowdonia National Park have been covered with natural=heath, much of which seems blatantly incorrect. Although I am from the Netherlands, having studied for half a year in Bangor in 1993, I know the area around Snowdon mountain and Llanberi

[Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

"I disagree with you here, the walkable line should be mapped as the right of way whether it follows the definitive line or not. It absolutely should not be mapped as permissive, the landowner is not giving permission. If the definitive line is obstructed you have an absolute right to go around it

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

On Tue Feb 7 15:04:22 2017 GMT, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2017-02-07 15:01, Philip Barnes wrote: > > > Hi Adam, welcome to the list. > > > > If the definitive line is obstructed you have an absolute right to go > > around it. > > Are you sure about this? I would expect that you only have a right

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

On 2017-02-07 15:01, Philip Barnes wrote: > Hi Adam, welcome to the list. > > If the definitive line is obstructed you have an absolute right to go around > it. Are you sure about this? I would expect that you only have a right to report the obstruction to the LA or apply to the courts. Technic

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Hi Adam, welcome to the list. On Tue Feb 7 13:26:00 2017 GMT, Adam Snape wrote: > Hi all, > > This is my first post to this (or indeed any) mailing list. Apologies if > I've made any errors. > > I agree with Colin that we should certainly not be assuming permissive > status for paths which are n

[Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Hi all, This is my first post to this (or indeed any) mailing list. Apologies if I've made any errors. I agree with Colin that we should certainly not be assuming permissive status for paths which are not included on the definitive map. The DM is legally definitive in the rights that it shows but

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator November 2016

> On 6 Feb 2017, at 20:35, Robert Scott > wrote: > > On Monday 06 February 2017 20:27:16 Robert Scott wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> Does anyone have a copy of OS OpenData Locator's November 2015 release still >> kicking around anywhere? > > Ok, I acknowledge I said 20

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator November 2016

> On 6 Feb 2017, at 20:35, Robert Scott > wrote: > > On Monday 06 February 2017 20:27:16 Robert Scott wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> Does anyone have a copy of OS OpenData Locator's November 2015 release still >> kicking around anywhere? > > Ok, I acknowledge I said 20