<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 27/08/2010 11:56, Ian Spencer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C7799D6.70707@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Had a quick look at Nick's current rendering which is a good stab
as you said. The thing that sticks out is that there are very few
footpaths rendered as public footpaths. It is unsurprising that
this happens because Potlatch et al have defaults when you select
public footpath that just implement footpath. The biggest job for
any reliable map would be to get mappers to properly identify
which paths are probably public footpaths (said in such ways
because even OS deny being reliable for that determination). THis
is where map rendering becomes an art and where a decision gets
taken as to whether to render footpaths as public footpaths
unless...<br>
<br>
To sort that out, you'd need a tool like keepright to highlight
footpaths without access tags (I think that is where the legal
status is held). In the UK any signposted public footpath would
have this or permissive way, unless you then get into something
else that needs mapping for walkers - open access areas.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that we've been around this loop before:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bLMCjOWz1lsJ:lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2009-April/003720.html+freemap+designation+site:lists.openstreetmap.org&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bLMCjOWz1lsJ:lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2009-April/003720.html+freemap+designation+site:lists.openstreetmap.org&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>