[Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage

Nick Whitelegg 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
>> countryside.

>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 
finer tuning.

>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 mailing list