I agree with SK53 that identifying missing RoW is the primary importance. Robert: Is your code open / available anywhere such that one can help improve it / take inspiration from / run it locally ?
I would like to use something better than flipping on/off a display of the ways in a Hampshire KML file over an OSM view and visually trying to spot ways in OSM that are missing! SK53 has previously generated something along these lines - see http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html I'd like to be able generate & keep these up to date myself, but never found out (or took the time to learn) the exact process and commands to do so. Personally I don't really have much motivation for putting in prow_ref tags (IMHO I think they could be either be imported or have a tool to convert from lat/lon (or OSM way Id) to a prow_ref) - since they aren't often signed on the ground unless on diversion notice or planning application or similar. -- Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. ________________________________________ From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> Sent: 27 June 2017 15:05:55 To: talk-gb Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire On 27 June 2017 at 13:30, SK53 <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: > It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with > some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag. Hampshire > is one of the better mapped places in England and Wales. have no problem > with us eventually adding identifiers for PRoW, but surely at this stage we > really should be focussing on finding and mapping paths which are not on OSM > at all, and/or getting designation tags on those already mapped but without > them. > > I personally do not find a tool which focuses on identifiers useful for this > task. Fair enough. In an ideal world I agree that you might want to do the comparison / matching without needing identifiers. But I decided that would be too difficult (for me) to programme, and possibly too computationally expensive to do well. So I see adding the identifiers as a useful tool to allow the matching to be cone more conveniently, and hence allow gaps / missing paths to be more apparent. YMMV :) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ 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
