I was thinking about overlaying the HCC KML over OSM in Marble (
http://marble.kde.org ), but I guess both achieve the same thing.
Although I would caution that I have in the last couple of days noticed
that the HCC KML is more out of date than HCC's new online map overlay -
I originally thought they were using the same file and it appears not.
Regards
Robert
On 04/12/13 19:52, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
Only a few weeks ago I was talking with a Council Officer involved in developing a new
"way" with a local walking group. They've discovered that many of the
footpaths that make up the way no longer follow the definitive map and are now debating
as to who is going to pay to get the map changed. I should imagine they cannot endorse
the work unless this is resolved but the cannot reasonably ask the landowners to pay up
as the line of the footpaths have changed due to usage rather than the landowners
redirecting or obstructing the paths.
Personally I am using the www.rowmaps.com for research, i.e. identifying paths
that aren't in OSM, and then going out and walking them. It is certainly
becoming more challenging as many of these are rarely walked.
Interestingly enough I used the row data from the above site to inform
Staffordshire Council of an obstruction only earlier this week. I provided all
the numbers for the row along with a GR for the obstruction. An email came
back, telling me the GR was in Derbyshire, so they totally ignored all the row
numbers/descriptions I had provided. I doubled checked the GR by putting it in
the OS website and responded that it was in Staffordshire. I've yet to have a
response!
If I have to go round boggy parts of a field etc. I ignore this and just put in
a straight line. If landowners are concerned about keeping walkers to a
particular line I generally find they put up fences and lots of way
markers/signs. Alternatively, they remove every possible evidence of a row in
the hope you'll think it no longer exists and take an alternative route. The
one great thing we can do in OSM is put in the detail as actual walkers (i.e.
on the ground surveyors).
Regards
Dudley
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 02:52:58 +0000
From: m...@wintonian.net
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Really what I meant was where the is a RoW (as evidenced by the
definitive map) but the actual line that is used has moved over time,
perhaps to avoid a fallen tree or an area that has become wet and boggy
over the years or otherwise more difficult to traverse than the new line.
Therefore what happens is that that actual line used becomes different
to the legal line, sometimes the definitive map is updated to reflect
this but this seem to be normally only when there is another reason to
modify the entry.
I hope that's clearer.
Regards
Robert
On 04/12/13 02:24, Andy Street wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:20 +0000
Jonathan <bigfatfro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Can someone clarify the situation for me. I'm in Worcestershire
where permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW.
However, what is the advice in a situation where you can't use
official PRoW data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey
also shows a clear path across the field but the signs show a Public
Footpath along the edge into another field and rejoining on the other
side.
Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland
highway=path tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official
PRoW. Further more, if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the
case), do we just leave it blank, even though the CC show it on their
copyright map or again show a highway=path marking the tresspassing.
Map what you know, leave whatever remains for other people or a
later date. If you know they are trespassing then it's highway=path,
access=private, otherwise just add highway=path as it could be either
permissive or private.
If you are unable to follow a PRoW on the ground then please consider
submitting a fault report to the council. Not only will you be helping
fellow mappers who follow in your footsteps but other path users too.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
