[Talk-GB] "United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines" on the OSM wiki: due for an update?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Possibly relevant here: Freemap's database has a rural bias, as it covers only certain counties: specifically W Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Wiltshire and Somerset in the south;
Cheshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire and Cumbria in the north; and all of Wales. The dominance of footway still holds:

footway (all) 81766
path (all) 14904
footway + designation 11711
path + designation 2042
footway + foot=permissive 3699
path + foot=permissive 1619

However I'd agree that what would really be interesting is the trend.

The main thing that comes out of this data is how many footways OR paths lack either a designation tag or a foot=permissive.
I suspect that many of these are rights of way or permissive paths. Since we really want to let people know where they can
definitely walk, I think this is a more important issue to fix than footway vs path!

Nick

-----Graham Jones <grahamjones139 at gmail.com> wrote: -----
To: Andrew Chadwick <a.t.chadwick at gmail.com>
From: Graham Jones <grahamjones139 at gmail.com>
Date: 17/02/2012 07:43PM
Cc: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] "United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines" on the OSM wiki: due for an update?



On 17 February 2012 17:35, Andrew Chadwick <a.t.chadwick at gmail.com> wrote:
 
I'd still love to see some areas with big outbreaks of highway=path+designation-only, or highway=path+access-tags-only as
 representations of public paths. Must throw down some overpass-api
 quadrats around the country to see what people are doing in various
 areas, before we completely throw highway=path to the Germans.
 Statistically, would highway=path + designation=public_footpath vs.
 highway=footway + designation=public_footpath be a worthwhile
 comparison? Should get around the legacy issue with h=footway.
 
I have just had a play with my shiny new British Isles database import with a hstore, so that I can get to the 'designation' tag.   The following queries are looking at highway = footway v's highway=path, with or without some sort of designation (ie designation or foot not null). 

osm_gb_hs=# --total with a designation 
osm_gb_hs=# select highway, count(way) as count,cast(sum(st_length2d(way)/1000.) as int) as totLen from planet_osm_line where (highway='footway' or highway='path') and (((tags->'designation') is not null) or (foot is not null)) group by highway order by highway, totLen desc; 
 highway | count  | totlen 
---------+--------+-------- 
 footway | 124970 |  66566
 path    |  27154 |  17313 
(2 rows)

 
osm_gb_hs=# 
osm_gb_hs=# --total without a designation 
osm_gb_hs=# select highway, count(way) as count,cast(sum(st_length2d(way)/1000.) as int) as totLen from planet_osm_line where (highway='footway' or highway='path') and (((tags->'designation') is  null) and (foot is null)) group by highway order by highway, totLen desc; 
 highway | count  | totlen 
---------+--------+-------- 
 footway | 224678 |  59942
 path    |  28628 |  14235 
(2 rows)
You can see that there are many more highway=footway rather than highway=path in the british isles.   I think the totlen column is the total length in km, but my postgis is not very good so this could be wrong. 

Basically this says that there are 224k footways without a designation of some sort, and 125k with a designation.
Similarly, there are 28k paths without a designation and 27k with a designation.  [there are also over 20k highway=bridleway, which is an odd one]. 

Is this the sort of query you were thinking of?   Of course I can produce huge lists of all the combinations of designations and foot values, but not that sure how useful that is, or how to present it.   This is for the whole uk, so includes urban areas, which could account for the very large proportion of footways over paths.  I wonder if there are relations for the national parks so I could run a few queries for those areas? 

Graham.

 -- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
 _______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20120218/afcfcf02/attachment.html>