[Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19)

[Richard Mann]

Your non-copyright source is probably a fingerpost (verifiable on the
ground). If people want to go round translating the legal documents
into where the path ought to be on the ground, then there's no great
harm in it, and it's certainly verifiable.

Of course, this will get a bit circular when people start using OSM to
produce the definitive maps, but we're a little way off that.

Richard

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
<ajrlists at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com] wrote:
>>Sent: 13 May 2010 2:00 PM
>>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>>Cc: Ian Spencer; talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest,
>>Vol 44, Issue 19)
>>
>>If you've got reasonable non-copyright evidence that there's a PROW
>>across the field, use designation=public_footpath. If there's a path
>>that people seem to use, use the highway=path tag (or some other
>>highway tag if you prefer), and maybe a surface tag. You can have a
>>OSM way with just a designation tag; it doesn't have to have a highway
>>tag.
>
> And how would I verify that way on the ground then?
>
> The same argument applies generally to other non physical objects in the
> database. Public Transport zone and boundary data both being good examples
> of "virtual" data that we currently collect. We might in the long run think
> about differentiating those objects which are non physical.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
> Mapnik won't render it, but someone else might want the info; may
>>as well record it while you're there.
>>
>>Richard
>>
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2870 - Release Date: 05/12/10
>>19:26:00
>
>