Hi
I've been using MapThe Paths for the last year to add my local ROW's to
OSM - I find it a great help. If we can get all of the data into OSM it
will enable all ROW users to identify in one source of ROWs and
NOT.ROWs. This is important as I have identified several paths which
perhaps
David wrote:
>In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping rights of
way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any designation that only
appears in a map.
That's news to me! Given that you say "strong" I must assume that you refer
to something other than talk-gb(?).
The main aim, though, of this project is to investigate, using the historical
maps, historical rights of way for the point of view of gathering evidence to
re-open them before 2026.
A possible side-effect of this is to locate new paths to map for OSM. Such
paths would not, of course, be
On 30/09/2019 18:25, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing
council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex'
effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on
the historical maps which do not
See
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/dont-lose-your-way-2026.aspx
https://www.oss.org.uk/what-do-we-fight-for/footpaths-rights-of-way/the-deregulation-act/
Historically we have been able to claim lost rights of way by providing user
evidence and have them added to the
Hi,
Was just thinking whether it would be worth us (as in OSM UK) resurrecting the
'missing paths for 2026' project?
A quick reminder - we have until 2026 to record historical rights of way which
have fallen out of use in recent times, and the combination of OSM, council
data and historical
6 matches
Mail list logo
