Hello Andy,
Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban
sprawl.
These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when
housing
development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.
True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people
Hello Andy,
Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl.
These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing
development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.
True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people
Hello everyone,
Following on from the unintentional rights-of-way coverage map generated
by zooming out from the OSM/First Edition mashup that I mentioned the
other day, I've now done a script to generate a real one.
It's available at
http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/statsmap.php
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Sent: 23 October 2009 10:43 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map
Hello everyone,
Following on from the unintentional rights-of-way coverage map generated
by zooming out from the OSM/First Edition mashup that I mentioned
Hello Andy,
Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl.
These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing
development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.
True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people
It's a bit more sophisticated than that; see the URL for what I consider
a right of way. Note that I tried a version with highway=footway,foot=yes
added in, and got the same sort of pattern.
Nick
In fact, it's possible to add highway=footway, foot=yes to the definition
of a right of way by
just wondering: are any of the highway=footpath tags still in OSM
database? I always used to use those for legal rights-of-way
footpaths with a footpath sign until it became OSM-standard that
highway=footway should be used for all paths regardless of legal
status.
7 matches
Mail list logo
