Do we have plans to map the new "Black Country Geopark":
http://blackcountrygeopark.org.uk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Country_Geopark
or to tag the various components as belonging to it? Is this suitable
for a "relation"?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 12:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
> For non-OS maps, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last
> surviving major contributor. The wiki has some information on this:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#UK
See also:
If it's truly "open access land" then it's not permissive, it's merely
foot=yes, surely?
Dan
Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 13:20 schreef Michael Collinson :
>
> Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag?
>
> Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you
> usually have
Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag?
Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you
usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second,
there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it
isn't just dependent on the
On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:
> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
> Scotland
> and England).
Not just England, Wales too.
Phil (trigpoint)
>
> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry,
> farming etc.) restrictions -
On 11/07/2020 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote:
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google.
It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom
level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than
That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. Scotland
and England).
A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry,
farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that it
is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
Morning list!
I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could also
do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street.
K
Am 11. Juli 2020 12:37:33 MESZ schrieb Martin Wynne :
>
>> It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg.
>
>We could
It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg.
We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag
it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could
call it Fairfields Road.
Martin.
___
Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
consensus? It would be super helpful
Dan
Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
:
>
>
> .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
On 2020-07-11 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote:
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or
Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at
that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps
rather than
.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse
is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way
(except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths
are implicitly open to the public. However there is no
I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside,
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google.
It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom
level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than
OS.
For what it's worth, I also found
14 matches
Mail list logo
