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 <mar...@templot.com> Sent: 29 December 2019 22:52 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org <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
