[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

Robert Norris rw_norris at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 27 19:30:05 UTC 2017


I agree with SK53 that identifying missing RoW is the primary importance.

Robert: Is your code open / available anywhere such that one can help improve it / take inspiration from / run it locally ?

I would like to use something better than flipping on/off a display of the ways in a Hampshire KML file over an OSM view and visually trying to spot ways in OSM that are missing!

SK53 has previously generated something along these lines - see http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html

I'd like to be able generate & keep these up to date myself, but never found out (or took the time to learn) the exact process and commands to do so.

Personally I don't really have much motivation for putting in prow_ref tags (IMHO I think they could be either be imported or have a tool to convert from lat/lon (or OSM way Id) to a prow_ref) - since they aren't often signed on the ground unless on  diversion notice or planning application or similar.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

________________________________________
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com>
Sent: 27 June 2017 15:05:55
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

On 27 June 2017 at 13:30, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with
> some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag. Hampshire
> is one of the better mapped places in England and Wales.  have no problem
> with us eventually adding identifiers for PRoW, but surely at this stage we
> really should be focussing on finding and mapping paths which are not on OSM
> at all, and/or getting designation tags on those already mapped but without
> them.
>
> I personally do not find a tool which focuses on identifiers useful for this
> task.

Fair enough. In an ideal world I agree that you might want to do the
comparison / matching without needing identifiers. But I decided that
would be too difficult (for me) to programme, and possibly too
computationally expensive to do well. So I see adding the identifiers
as a useful tool to allow the matching to be cone more conveniently,
and hence allow gaps / missing paths to be more apparent. YMMV :)

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

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



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list