[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

David Groom reviews at pacific-rim.net
Mon Dec 31 13:25:53 GMT 2012



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "SomeoneElse" <lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk>
To: <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM


> Steven Horner wrote:
>>
>> I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering
>> how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed
>> the guidelines at
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
>> should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which
>> would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths
>> <http://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/>, if so how?
>>
>
> First things first, I'd definitely go out and survey them.  The OS
> hasn't surveyed these paths (if at all) for years, and important details
> such as the path surface and which side of a hedge it runs often aren't
> recorded.  That'll create a series of ways within OSM, broken up by e.g.
> surface changes and whenever there's a bridge. I'd also add
> "designation=public_footpath", of course.
>
> Previously I would have taken that designation to mean "Someone has been
> there and can verify that there is a public footpath sign", although if
> people are going to import footpath information from councils without
> survey then perhaps we all ought to be adding "source:designation" as 
> well?
>
> Personally I'm not convinced by adding reference numbers that don't
> exist on any signs (some, but very few, authorities put them there).  If
> you can't refer to it anywhere, it's not exactly a reference number, is 
> it*?
>
> I notice in taginfo that there are 10 "footpath_ref" and 2
> "source:footpath_ref" already.  Perhaps something would that would do?
> Personnaly, if I was going to add "footpath_ref" I'd definitely add
> "source:footpath_ref" to make it clear where it came from.

Last time this was discussed on the list I think we favoured prow:ref

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-June/013424.html

David


>
>> The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council &
>> Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is
>> incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX
>> tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the
>> PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I
>> have, add both tagged differently or some other way?
>>
>
> I'd definitely tag what's on the ground.  If there's a path that people
> use, add that as highway=footway (or whatever).  If there's a public
> footpath sign pointing down it, add "designation=public_footpath".
>
> If the "public footpath" sign points in a different direction to the
> path that everyone uses, I'd tag both.  Here's one I found in
> Leicestershire:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121&lon=-0.783637&zoom=18
>
> If the local authority or the OS have some path route that isn't marked
> on the ground, I personnally probably wouldn't bother adding it, since
> it doesn't actually exist.
>
>> Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as
>> two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been
>> discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?
>>
>
> If you use something like "footpath_ref" then you'll have to do this,
> but of course you'll probably split into much smaller segments anyway
> when you take into account surface changes, bridges, etc.
>
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
> * I have exactly the same issue with people adding reference numbers
> (from who knows where) to C roads.  The only effect surely is to confuse
> foreign visitors.
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 





More information about the Talk-GB mailing list