[Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project

Rob Nickerson rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Tue Oct 1 20:40:16 UTC 2019


David wrote:

>In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping rights of
way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any designation that only
appears in a map.

That's news to me! Given that you say "strong" I must assume that you refer
to something other than talk-gb(?). For sure it is preferable to have a
sign on the ground but I don't agree that a Local Authorities failure to
signpost a right of way is justification for us to ignore such an important
piece of information. We have some fantastic supplementary sources of (open
data) information that many within the OpenStreetMap community have fought
hard for. Let's use them - I know I do and will continue to do so :-)

By the way, if you extend your logic beyond rights of way then we'd have to
delete lots of data which is still based upon tracing the old NPE maps and
downgrade/delete a whole swathe of data which is wholly or partly based in
aerial imagery. As such you can see why I disagree wholeheartedly with your
interpretation. Yes to real surveys and real signposts as much as possible
but no to "cutting off our nose to spite our face".

Best regards
Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20191001/b5dd0933/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list