...@hotmail.com
Sent: 18 August 2015 21:16
To: Rob Nickerson; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways
Hi Rob
My approach is a pragmatic one. I've come to the conclusion that it isn't
reasonable to expect the default OSM website to render the specialist
features that a UK
On 18/08/15 09:46, Dan S wrote:
I'm so fed up of the carping over the default map render (OSM-Carto).
It's clearly a contested resource for our community. Was there ever
much discussion about creating transparent overlays (e.g. a hiking
overlay) on top of a minimal baselayer, so that we can
On 18/08/2015 07:43, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 18 Aug 2015 03:56, Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no interest to do this in the OSM standard style because
it is abundantly clear that any new attempts at changes that make
rural navigation possible*
Hi all,
I'm so fed up of the carping over the default map render (OSM-Carto).
It's clearly a contested resource for our community. Was there ever
much discussion about creating transparent overlays (e.g. a hiking
overlay) on top of a minimal baselayer, so that we can disaggregate
the thing and
On 18 Aug 2015 03:56, Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no interest to do this in the OSM standard style because it is
abundantly clear that any new attempts at changes that make rural
navigation possible* in OSM-carto would be rejected based on the ones that
already have been over
On 18/08/2015 09:48, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 10:20, Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
In the
immediately previous message you said:
So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render style
which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on
On 18 August 2015 at 10:20, Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/08/2015 07:43, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 18 Aug 2015 03:56, Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no interest to do this in the OSM standard style because it is
abundantly clear that any new attempts at
.
Kind Regards
Dudley
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:25:35 +0100
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways
Thanks Andy,
Fully aware of access land, undocumented rights of way and permissive paths. I
just need to remember to be careful
On 17/08/2015 23:25, Rob Nickerson wrote:
So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render
style which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this
list to recent changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!
There's no interest to do this in the
On 17/08/2015 21:43, Rob Nickerson wrote:
... In regards to designation=*, are we now the only country that
makes a distinction between paths you have a legal right to walk on
and any other path that might exist because people happen to walk over
the land thus leaving a desire line path?
Hi
Thanks Andy,
Fully aware of access land, undocumented rights of way and permissive
paths. I just need to remember to be careful of what I write on this
mailing list (but I was trying not to write an essay).
I'm surprised if this is just England and Wales as I would have thought
some other
On 8/17/2015 3:25 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote:
I'm surprised if this is just England and Wales as I would have
thought some other country has some way of documenting paths in a
legal context and as such this may be relevant for other countries
I'm not aware of any countries which quite have the
Hi
My thoughts as follows:
This is really going to be something for a UK specific rendering. It is
actually quite useful as a QC exercise to rendering footways/paths with and
without a designation tag. Something I do on my own Garmin map. The
presumption on my part being that ideally we
Thanks Dudley.
I'm not sure that I agree that this is UK specific. We render roads
according to their status (motorway to unclassified), and as such I see
potential to do this for paths irrespective of country. In regards to
designation=*, are we now the only country that makes a distinction
Hi all,
Given that paths and footways are now rendered the same way in the default
OSM style I wonder whether it is time to look at how the map can provide
better information.
For rural mappers tagging a path/footway as unpaved surface results in it
having less prominence on the map. As most
On 8/16/2015 1:57 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a
well-mapped central European city. If there is evaluation of the
results in both rural and urban settings in
On 16 August 2015 at 21:06, ajt1...@gmail.com ajt1...@gmail.com
That makes some sense, but OSM-Carto's biggest problem is that a number of
the changes over the last year have been dedicated to making well-mapped
central European urban areas look nice at the expense of the rest of the
planet.
On 16 August 2015 at 22:57, ajt1...@gmail.com ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a
well-mapped central European city. If there is evaluation of the results in
both rural and
On 16/08/2015 22:04, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 16 August 2015 at 22:57, ajt1...@gmail.com ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a
well-mapped central European city. If there
On 16/08/2015 18:26, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Hi all,
Given that paths and footways are now rendered the same way in the
default OSM style I wonder whether it is time to look at how the map
can provide better information.
For rural mappers tagging a path/footway as unpaved surface results in
On 16/08/2015 21:20, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 16 August 2015 at 21:06, ajt1...@gmail.com ajt1...@gmail.com
That makes some sense, but OSM-Carto's biggest problem is that a number of
the changes over the last year have been dedicated to making well-mapped
central European urban areas look
Dave F. dave...@... writes:
I use footway for surfaced paths and path for unsurfaced,
This is, IMO, incorrect usage. the primary tag should be used to declare
it's legal status (am I allowed down to go down that path) secondary
tags such as 'surface' the physical condition of the way (am I
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
(when to use footway or path)
I use footway for surfaced paths and path for unsurfaced,
This is, IMO, incorrect usage. the primary tag should be used to declare
it's legal status (am I allowed down to go down that path) secondary
tags such as 'surface' the
At the risk of starting a pointlessly long thread...
Can anyone help me understand when to use highway=path and when to use
highway=footway in the UK? If it's still a completely stupid disagreement
then nevermind, I'll just carry on as I have for five years using
highway=footway.
The wiki says
(when to use footway or path)
I use footway for surfaced paths and path for unsurfaced, unmaintained mud
paths, typically in the country. I don't think there's a right answer to this
though!
For actual legal rights of way, many believe that the
I use path for unmade paths in the country (or indistinct ones across
parks), and footways for made up paths.
Richard
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
At the risk of starting a pointlessly long thread...
Can anyone help me understand when to use
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I use path for unmade paths in the country (or indistinct ones across
parks), and footways for made up paths.
Richard
But that goes against the wiki advice, highway=footway is for designated
foot
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Trevor Hook
trevor.k.h...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I use path for unmade paths in the country (or indistinct ones across
parks), and footways for made up paths.
Richard
I've always used footways for urban, usually metalled, pedestrian routes
and path for offroad routes outside of urban areas.
If it has been constructed and pavement-like access restrictions are
likely to be in force (ie, no bikes) I'd call it a footway. If it is a
PROV over a field or a
29 matches
Mail list logo
