Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
At that time, and for many years later, OS maps did not explicitly show rights of way, and always had a disclaimer on them along the lines of "The depiction of a track or path on this map does not imply the existence of a public right of way". Roger On 30/12/2019 12:02, Nick Whitelegg wrote: This reminds me of the old First Series maps last published around 1958-ish. Looking at an area I'm very familiar with: it does not show public rights of way; it merely seems to show paths which are physically present on the ground. Some of these are rights of way, and some are not. Nick *From:* Martin Wynne *Sent:* 29 December 2019 22:52 *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render On 29/12/2019 22:23, Andy Townsend wrote: > Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as > missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, > e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. > This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel > complete version for paying customers? Hi Andy, No there isn't - I'm a Premium subscriber. The "Standard" base map is rubbish as a map in its own right. For example it has contour lines, but no height indications on them, or even which direction is uphill. What's the use of that? It is used as a base map for other coloured overlays in addition to the Street map, such as the National Park Paths, Cycle Map, Greenspace maps. None of which work very well. On mobile devices there is also a low-brightness Night map which is useful. However, the Aerial, 25K and 50K maps are fine -- and the 3D stuff and fly-over functions are great. The main reason for subscribing however, is the ability to view a large database of routes, create your own custom routes to add to it (or not), and have an easy URL of your route which you can send to friends. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
This reminds me of the old First Series maps last published around 1958-ish. Looking at an area I'm very familiar with: it does not show public rights of way; it merely seems to show paths which are physically present on the ground. Some of these are rights of way, and some are not. Nick From: Martin Wynne Sent: 29 December 2019 22:52 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render On 29/12/2019 22:23, Andy Townsend wrote: > Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as > missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, > e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. > This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel > complete version for paying customers? Hi Andy, No there isn't - I'm a Premium subscriber. The "Standard" base map is rubbish as a map in its own right. For example it has contour lines, but no height indications on them, or even which direction is uphill. What's the use of that? It is used as a base map for other coloured overlays in addition to the Street map, such as the National Park Paths, Cycle Map, Greenspace maps. None of which work very well. On mobile devices there is also a low-brightness Night map which is useful. However, the Aerial, 25K and 50K maps are fine -- and the 3D stuff and fly-over functions are great. The main reason for subscribing however, is the ability to view a large database of routes, create your own custom routes to add to it (or not), and have an easy URL of your route which you can send to friends. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
On 29/12/2019 22:23, Andy Townsend wrote: Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel complete version for paying customers? Hi Andy, No there isn't - I'm a Premium subscriber. The "Standard" base map is rubbish as a map in its own right. For example it has contour lines, but no height indications on them, or even which direction is uphill. What's the use of that? It is used as a base map for other coloured overlays in addition to the Street map, such as the National Park Paths, Cycle Map, Greenspace maps. None of which work very well. On mobile devices there is also a low-brightness Night map which is useful. However, the Aerial, 25K and 50K maps are fine -- and the 3D stuff and fly-over functions are great. The main reason for subscribing however, is the ability to view a large database of routes, create your own custom routes to add to it (or not), and have an easy URL of your route which you can send to friends. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
On 29/12/2019 16:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OS have digitised all paths in National Parks and appear to be gradually digitising others. But certainly they haven't done the full set of PROWs yet. Interestingly, just up the road from my previous example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/759440934 . That's clearly signed as a public footpath, it's well within the national park (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/759440934#map=15/54.4519/-1.0957 ), but it's not shown at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/54.44738,-1.08281,18 . Maybe they've only done the national parks that London-based journos are likely to visit? :) Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel complete version for paying customers? (a bit like the story repeated about the Soviet Union during the Cold War - "they may only be shipping Ladas over here, but their military technology is equivalent to ours"). To check this I did try registering for a free trial to view "National Park Pathways", but got the message "We're sorry, we're experiencing some technical difficulties at the moment. The OS Maps team are working hard to fix the issue". Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
On 29/12/2019 15:53, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ > This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone know > what criteria OS used to decide which to render? Initially, it appears > random. OS call that the "Standard Map", which is displayed to visitors to the "OS Maps" app who have not signed up for the subscription service (or logged in). After which you can see the "Leisure Maps" (Landranger and Explorer), the Night Map, and several other options. The Standard map appears to have been made as information-free as possible, perhaps intentionally as a background to the street map overlay -- and presumably to encourage folks to sign up for a subscription. For example the OS Maps help page says helpfully "There is no legend available for the Standard map at the moment." Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
DaveF wrote: > This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone > know what criteria OS used to decide which to render? I suspect "only those which OS have got round to digitising". OS have digitised all paths in National Parks and appear to be gradually digitising others. But certainly they haven't done the full set of PROWs yet. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
> I've a contributor who says it's evidence that some PROWS don't existany > more. They're still shown in Bing's OS Explorer map & in the localauthority's > digital database. ... and are still on the ground in at least some cases. As I read this I've just walked past here: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=24=54.4339599=-1.11039565 and there's a public footpath signed north and a bridleway signed west just around the corner. Neither is in OSM as I write this either, but they will be within a week or so. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
Hi https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone know what criteria OS used to decide which to render? Initially, it appears random. I've a contributor who says it's evidence that some PROWS don't exist any more. They're still shown in Bing's OS Explorer map & in the local authority's digital database. Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
