[Talk-GB] Finding Unmapped public rights of way

[sk53.osm]

That's exactly what I am doing. I've described the method so others are
welcome to apply it.

The problem of comparing PRoW against the path network is more complex:
many rights of way will run along service roads (farm driveways) or tracks.
In places with many paths, the buffer approach may result in erroneous
matches and is probably useless in urban settings.

Personally, I think its better to use this type of information as the basis
for survey. Missing designation information likewise: I was surprised to
find I could not recall the status of paths in the Long Eaten area which I
use from time to time.

Jerry
On Jul 29, 2013 12:20 PM, "Phil Endecott" <spam_from_osmgb at chezphil.org>
wrote:

> sk53.osm wrote:
>
>> Overview of missing Derbyshire footpaths:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/**sk53_osm/9390856924/<http://www.flickr.com/photos/sk53_osm/9390856924/>
>>
>
> Interesting.
>
> I think you're comparing the prow map with OSM paths tagged
> designation=public_footpath/**bridleway.  You would see a lot more
> green if you compared with all OSM paths (& tracks).  It would
> be great to see a breakdown of X% mapped with designation
> tag, Y% mapped without that tag, and Z% not mapped at all.
>
> Personally, I'd support some sort of semi-automatic addition of
> designation= tags to paths that have e.g. highway=footway and
> that are near-coincident with things in the prow map.  Do you
> have the technology to do that?
>
>
> Regards,  Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20130730/1bda1be4/attachment.html>