it's got
> to generate the geojson from the database... but the geojson is now cached
> making it much faster on subsequent requests.
>
> Nick
>
> -Adam Hoyle wrote: -
> To: talk-gb Talk-GB
> From: Adam Hoyle
> Date: 25/01/2013 10:18AM
> Subject: Re: [
2PM
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding
PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
OK should have both Oxfordshire and Bucks now. (discovered the latter was also
on geofabrik)
It may take some time to render first time you try somewhere out, as it's
uests.
Nick
-Adam Hoyle wrote: -
To: talk-gb Talk-GB
From: Adam Hoyle
Date: 25/01/2013 10:18AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance foradding
PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On 24 Jan 2013, at 14:34, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>Not entirely tangential question -
On 25 Jan 2013, at 10:42, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the
designation tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon /
ever? >>Or is there somewhere that already exists that >renders
designations?
>
>>> Yes -
>>>Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the designation
>>>tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon / ever? >>Or is
>>>there somewhere that already exists that >renders designations?
>>Yes - www.free-map.org.uk. (at least for southern and northern England a
On 24 Jan 2013, at 14:34, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> >Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the designation
> >tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon / ever? Or is there
> >somewhere that already exists that >renders designations?
>
> Yes - www.free-map.org
Hi Barry,
> On 24 Jan 2013 11:38, "Barry Cornelius" wrote:
>>
>> Please can you confirm that the routes are now better...
>
The Devon kml data looks spot on now.
thanks,
Kevin
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreet
On 24 Jan 2013 15:02, "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since the public rights of way tagging using designation=* is a very
> British (actually English and Welsh) thing, I doubt it will ever be
> rendered on the main OSM map. :-(
I don't really see why th
On 24 Jan 2013 11:38, "Barry Cornelius" wrote:
>
> Please can you confirm that the routes are now better...
Thanks for that. I'll check it out and let you know (will probably be
tomorrow now).
Kevin
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
ht
On 24 January 2013 14:28, Adam Hoyle wrote:
> Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the designation
> tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon / ever? Or is there
> somewhere that already exists that renders designations?
Since the public rights of way tagging
>Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the designation
>tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon / ever? Or is there
>somewhere that already exists that >renders designations?
Yes - www.free-map.org.uk. (at least for southern and northern England and
Wales)
On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> This way of doing the tagging is consistent with what is commonly
> already done with Public Rights of Way. The highway=* tag records the
> physical appearance of the way (footway, track, road, etc.), the
> designation=* tag gives th
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Kevin Peat wrote:
If you look at DN Dartmouth Bridleway 1 with the OS map background you can
see it is offset a little to the south.
Following some e-mail exchanges with Devon County Council, on 23rd
December I corrected a few errors in the metadata of a few routes.
Unfor
On 24 January 2013 09:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
> highway=track, access=yes, designation=unclassified_highway
...makes sense to me for those I have seen. These tracks have no
signage at all but clearly there are public access rights which would
be nice to reflect in osm.
Kevin
___
On 23 January 2013 19:38, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> No extra "designation" tag is needed in my opinion. If they are on the
> authorities list of streets, then they are legally exactly the same as any
> other road. Therefore highway=unclassified would be fine. The issue arises
> when they are not well
On 23 Jan 2013 23:22, "Barry Cornelius" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Kevin Peat wrote:
>>
>> The "Converted kml file for Devon" on this page:
>> http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DN/
>
>
> Great, thanks. Each path has a name, e.g.:
>DN Seaton Footpath 2
> It would help if you gave the names of s
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Kevin Peat wrote:
The "Converted kml file for Devon" on this page:
http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DN/
Great, thanks. Each path has a name, e.g.:
DN Seaton Footpath 2
It would help if you gave the names of some of the paths you have problems
with. Sorry, I should have ask
On 23 Jan 2013 21:42, "Barry Cornelius" wrote:
>
> Which kml file are you referring to?
>
> Please give me a URL so that I can download the kml and check...
The "Converted kml file for Devon" on this page:
http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DN/
Kevin
___
Tal
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Kevin Peat wrote:
I also noticed that the Devon data (using the kml from your site in josm)
appears to be consistently offset a few metres south of where it should be.
Not a big deal just FYI really.
Which kml file are you referring to?
Please give me a URL so that I can d
I'm not sure if anyone will be able to help bring some degree of firmness
to this, but it is my belief that roads that are on the Local Authority
list of streets appear with a solid border in OS StreetView map. So for
your example:
http://os.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=15&lat=50.43928&lon=-3.67146&lay
On 23 Jan 2013 19:38, "Rob Nickerson" wrote
>
> Ideas welcome (I've not seen enough examples to get an understanding of
what these roads are actually like on the ground - photos ...
This is one:
http://m.google.co.uk/u/m/R9HAqI
The ones I have surveyed are glorified farm tracks with mostly grav
No extra "designation" tag is needed in my opinion. If they are on the
authorities list of streets, then they are legally exactly the same as any
other road. Therefore highway=unclassified would be fine. The issue arises
when they are not well maintained, narrow, or not suitable for some larger
veh
On 23 Jan 2013 18:58, "Rob Nickerson" wrote:
>
> ...
Thanks for that. Any thoughts on whether they should be specifically tagged
in OSM?
Kevin
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
In regards to "Other roads with public access" (ORPA) - this is a term that
the Ordnance Survey have used, in other places they are called
"Unclassified County Road". Most often they are legally the same as a
normal road (and should therefore appear in the Local Authorities list if
streets, in whic
Hi Barry,
On 23 Jan 2013 16:07, "Barry Cornelius" wrote:
>
> ...
Thanks for your work on this.
I've been looking at the Devon data and have integrated a small amount of
it local to me. There are a whole bunch of unsurfaced green lanes around
here with public access that are not in the dataset.
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Barry,
Local government regions in England can be very confusing. For public rights
of way the responsibility of legally collating these on the Definitive Map
and Statement lies with those regions that are “surveying authorities”. This
is the same as the 1
Barry,
Local government regions in England can be very confusing. For public
rights of way the responsibility of legally collating these on the
Definitive Map and Statement lies with those regions that are “surveying
authorities”. This is the same as the 152 (151 if you exclude the “City of
London
27 matches
Mail list logo
