[Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage
Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
Mon Oct 26 08:57:23 GMT 2009
>> Hello Andy,
>>>Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban
>>>These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when
>>>development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.
>> True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people
>> interested in using rights of ways are going to be using them in the
>Whilst that's probably right, I notice that the boundaries of these urban
>areas are drawn very loosely and don't just exclude heavily urbanised
>e.g. you have excluded quite a large proportion of what is essentially
>Cheshire due to its proximity to Manchester - but in reality much of it
>very rural including some long-distance footpaths etc. All of the land
>between Liverpool and Manchester is missing, and only shows countour
>at closer zoom levels, not just the cities themselves.
I defined a series of rectangular areas to extract from the UK planet.osm,
and in order to avoid adding urban areas to the database, I had to exclude
small rural areas near the big cities. The bounding boxes probably need
>There's also a large void from Bridgnorth in Shropshire all the way to
>North Sea near Lowestoft which cuts off a lot of rural areas.
This probably arose in order to simplify my bounding boxes. I'll try and
look into this.
>There is a large void in the North of England - which includes part of
>Northumberland National Park.
The northern limit of my northernmost bounding box is somewhere near
Hadrian's Wall - again I'll look into this.
>Are these voids intentional, or are they areas that haven't been rendered
>for whatever reason?
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-GB