[Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

[SK53]

On 9 September 2016 at 12:35, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
wrote:

> Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > it would be interesting to know what routers make of highway=no.
>
> From
> https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/master/profiles/foot.lua
> :
>
>   ...
>
> I'm not enormously comfortable with highway=no - it's a bit like the justly
> discouraged amenity=pub, disused=yes. The designation= tag should be enough
> on its own for something that isn't actually a highway on the ground.
> (Maybe
> one could invent a namespaced highway tag but I can't immediately think of
> anything suitable...)
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
This is exactly what we did with this PRoW which is signposted but never
used as the track round the edge of the field is more convenient:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293561685.

I was looking at  East & West Sussex council websites the other day
(following up a note from a MapBox mapper) and they have lists of
temporarily closed and obstructed PRoWs. If this type of information could
be put into a common format (something like prow_ref, start GR, end GR,
closure dates) and either provided by councils or crowd-sourced then this
could be a useful way of identifying paths which ought not to be shown.
Gating orders in towns are another consideration.

Fortunately Carmarthenshire haven't released their data: working out which
footpaths are viable is a tough task for much of the authority's area.

Jerry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20160909/1b179c4d/attachment.html>