Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

I apologise to everyone for making a mess of this thread’s title and replying twice with the same content. I shall give myself one hundred lines (for those who remember the punishment)! --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map

It is fortunate for me that Oxfordshire County Council makes its Public Rights of Way shown in its Countryside Access Map downloadable. I have been able to load data in .kml format by civil parish to my ‘phone as an overlay to OSM and follow the paths, track recording as I walk. This allows

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

On 29/09/2017 19:40, Philip Barnes wrote: Each needs a case by case survey, any can be motor_vehicle=private or destination. I don't think that's what http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table is trying to say - it's saying "there are no motor vehicle rights granted by the

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 18:59 +0100, Bob Hawkins wrote: > > Jerry > I thank you for your helpful reply. > One of my difficulties with Restricted Byways is the use of > motor_vehicle=no as shown in Robert Whittaker’s table, http://wiki.op > enstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table. > I use

Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map

It is fortunate for me that Oxfordshire County Council makes its Public Rights of Way shown in its Countryside Access Map downloadable. I have been able to load data in .kml format by civil parish to my ‘phone as an overlay to OSM and follow the paths, track recording as I walk. This allows

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

Jerry I thank you for your helpful reply. One of my difficulties with Restricted Byways is the use of motor_vehicle=no as shown in Robert Whittaker’s table, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table. I use vehicle=yes in almost all cases, but there are properties on Restricted

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

One simple rule of thumb: if the postman & delivery drivers go that way it's =destination not =private. "Private" roads, better called unadopted roads often get mapped with access=private in the first instance. This is better reserved for places where access is clearly limited by a gate or other

Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

What I have done in such situations is: - Remove designation tags from the actually used paths. Access with foot=yes is - Add the formal line of the path with the designation tag and access tags, but without highway tags. Specific examples I've mapped in the past couple of years:

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

David I should have made it clearer: the two signs of which I wrote are one above the other at the start of the one Restricted Byway – that, perhaps, is the complication. Bob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

W On 29 September 2017 at 14:35, Bob Hawkins wrote: > I should be interested to learn the general consensus regarding definitive > alignments of Public Rights of Way and paths actually walked, and whether > contributors have similar predicaments to mine. I have two

[Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

I should be interested to learn the general consensus regarding definitive alignments of Public Rights of Way and paths actually walked, and whether contributors have similar predicaments to mine. I have two cases in Shiplake, Oxfordshire: 1. Shiplake FP 37 Footpath #528052488 Changeset

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 14:06 +0100, David Woolley wrote: > On 29/09/17 13:56, Bob Hawkins wrote: > > > In the absence of the image, the two signs read as follows: 1. In > > white > > on blue: Oxfordshire County Council/No vehicles beyond this point > > except > > for access. > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

On 29/09/2017 14:06, David Woolley wrote: 2. In white on green: RESTRICTED BYWAY/PRIVATE ROAD/NO vehicle access except for residents.  I should appreciate views on the motor_vehicle=private Does the sign really mean "no vehicle access" or "no motor vehicle access"? As I

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

On 29/09/17 13:56, Bob Hawkins wrote: In the absence of the image, the two signs read as follows: 1. In white on blue: Oxfordshire County Council/No vehicles beyond this point except for access. motor_vehicle=destination 2. In white on green: RESTRICTED BYWAY/PRIVATE ROAD/NO

[Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

I wished to attach an image of road signs in Shiplake, Oxfordshire, but was informed the file was too large. In the absence of the image, the two signs read as follows: 1. In white on blue: Oxfordshire County Council/No vehicles beyond this point except for access. 2. In white on green: