[OSM-talk] Tracks, Byways, Footways, Bridleways, Rivers....!?

[Andy Robinson]

Ben,

Tracks etc: This really is a problem between what the way is physically and
what its rights are administratively or what is use is. These are three
separate things and we currently don’t have Map_Features set up to think
this way. The next version of Map Features (assuming I get to it before
anyone else) will split these up so that features can be tagged more
descriptively.

Waterways: There is a problem rendering a big river and a small stream
properly if you use river alone/ Of course you could measure the width and
use a width attribute but that’s not easy to do in the field. Needs a bit
more thought as to how to describe the width for better rendering.

Cheers

Andy

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ben Robbins
>Sent: 21 September 2006 10:32 PM
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [OSM-talk] Tracks, Byways, Footways, Bridleways, Rivers....!?
>
>I'm very confused.  Are the only things that are less than a road 'tracks'
>'bridleways' 'byways' and 'footways'??
>
>This is all I have found so far, and so its all I have used.  But I seem to
>be using track for so many completly different sorts of 'Tracks'.   Every
>Single road I have edited in the last few months is Track or Unclassified.
>Also if a footway is on a track...then what?  is it a footway, or a
>track?...
>
>Basically, 2 Questions (or more):
>
>1)  Is there a standadised way of nameing the visual and phisical state of
>the route indepent of the status of the route?  (So...if nessesery a
>phisical 'RIVER' could be statistically a 'Byway')
>
>2) Is there a wider range of tags for track types?  If not, I really really
>think there needs to be.   In my village and around, there are:
>
>Track 1) Basically farm enternces, or roads to houses out of the village.
>still Tarmacked
>Track 2) Stone/Gravel Tracks wich are heavily used
>Track 3) None Gravel but still heavily used tracks,  Usually still have
>hedges either side
>Track 4) Tracks across Grass, that usually hold the staus of bridleway or
>byway.
>Track 5) Field Tracks, wich are set aside sections around the edge of
>fields, used for access
>
>If these dont exsists, could I suggest that they be asigned lighter
>varients
>of the same colour.  So that the less excesable, and blantent in the
>landscape, the track is, the less it stands out on the map.  But at the
>same
>time it is still clear that they all belong to the same family...'TRACKS'.
>
>The other thing I have come across is Waterway-River (wich is what I'm
>currently labelling everything) Also seems quite generalized.  Are there a
>range of tags for rivers?  (I asume thickness is made from making an area).
>  The ones I am refering to are
>
>Streams:  Small enough that you can hop over them and they often dont have
>a
>bridge
>Seasonal Streams - Rivers:  Ones that dry up in the summer, but are
>definatly still present in the winter, and have some effect on the
>landscape
>and field boundries usually.
>
>Finally, at www.free-map.org.uk....< I'm completly confused why countryside
>places are rendered different from none countryside places.  Please explain
>this to me!.  Also...where is the topographical data taken from, cause it
>is
>really cool to see.
>
>Thanks...!
>
>Ben
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 20/09/2006
>

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 20/09/2006