<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
I recently found this gate which I think everyone walks around, but I'll probably map it as on the route of the footpath when I get around to looking through all the photos from that day.
<a href="https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/w2kvnsbGoKkhgIKFMsksLg">https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/w2kvnsbGoKkhgIKFMsksLg</a><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Ed</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> SK53 <sk53.osm@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 22, 2019 2:00:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Wynne<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Talk GB<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I will often map both the track through the gate & the path over the stile. It's usually a matter of judgement as to whether the line of the PRoW should go over the stile or through the gate. It's not unusual to find a moribund stile in such circumstances,
which I map as a standalone node. Keeping all the information is, I think, useful. Landowners change usage, or ownership changes with accordingly different attitudes to PRoWs, so there's no guarantee that a route will go through the gate in a few years time.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As usual, don't worry about how it looks on Carto-CSS: they can't solve very rendering problem, and having both gate & stile visible is useful for people updating the data. Specialist use for walking could choose to omit the non-PRoW elements, or otherwise
generalise the data (not widely done yet, but something which is generally needed as OSM becomes more detailed).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jerry</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 13:45, Martin Wynne <<a href="mailto:martin@templot.com">martin@templot.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:1ex; border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204); border-left-width:1px; border-left-style:solid">
Often in my travels I come across something like this:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg</a><br>
<br>
Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?<br>
<br>
If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?<br>
<br>
It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they <br>
must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see <br>
on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a track <br>
passing through a gate.<br>
<br>
If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath passing <br>
over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks daft on the <br>
map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a grassy field.<br>
<br>
And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the <br>
track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation <br>
(and ref number) is removed?<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
<br>
Martin.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>