Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Stuart Reynolds
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Dan S
Hi

foot=no would definitely be inappropriate! It would mean not permitted.

This is basically the same as the "Mapping dangerous - but valid -
routes" question that you asked in December, and the responses to that
are relevant here.

Best
Dan


2017-03-08 11:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds <[hidden email]>:

> What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways?
> Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near
> Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge
> (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is
> technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but
> it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into
> your hands if you did so.
>
> BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods.
> Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in
> the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add
> it in.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626
>
> Regards,
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

sk53.osm
In reply to this post by Stuart Reynolds
Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their particular situation.

As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the data which allows these routing situations to be better handled. The current tags which allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a sensible solution for your generic case would be to disallow pedestrian routing along A-roads which have sidewalk=none (perhaps when maxspeed > 30 mph). Verges will not be practicable for many pedestrians (Mums with pushchairs, toddlers, older people etc) so I think can be ignored.

This would still allow routing where no-one has surveyed or tagged sidewalk provision, and is therefore less likely to break places where there are pavements or paths. It also allows those cases where walking along the road is inadvisable to be mapped on a case-by-case basis.

Other refinements might include considering whether a road is urban or rural (Richard Fairhurst does this on cycle.travel): OS Open Data provides a decent data set of this & the one I generate from OSM is very similar.

On a broader community level: mapping presence of absence of pavements or other paths alongside main roads in the countryside (and when absent features of the verge) is probably something we should aim to do alongside completing speed limits for trunk roads. Much can be done from Mapillary images.

Jerry



On 8 March 2017 at 11:27, Stuart Reynolds <[hidden email]> wrote:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Stuart Reynolds
In reply to this post by Dan S

Hmm. Had forgotten that I had asked that.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 8 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Dan S <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi

foot=no would definitely be inappropriate! It would mean not permitted.

This is basically the same as the "Mapping dangerous - but valid -
routes" question that you asked in December, and the responses to that
are relevant here.

Best
Dan


2017-03-08 11:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds <[hidden email]>:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways?
Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near
Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge
(and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is
technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but
it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into
your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods.
Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in
the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add
it in.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Dave F
In reply to this post by Stuart Reynolds
Hi

I think anything subjective shouldn't be in OSM. What maybe considered
dangerous by you maybe perfectly acceptable to someone who's trying to
win a Darwin award. That the highway is mapped as an 'A' class dual
carriageway should give a clear enough  indication of conditions.

foot=* is for legal rights.

DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

ael-3
In reply to this post by Stuart Reynolds
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 11:27:59AM +0000, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

I probably mentioned this in the previous discussion, but what about the
hazard tag?

I realize that many people think this is getting subjective, but there
are situations where there really isn't much doubt .... it is almost
objective.

ael


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Philip Barnes
In reply to this post by sk53.osm
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:41 +0000, SK53 wrote:
Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their particular situation.
Absolutely, doing this could make many PROW inaccessible.

Phil (trigpoint)




As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the data which allows these routing situations to be better handled. The current tags which allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a sensible solution for your generic case would be to disallow pedestrian routing along A-roads which have sidewalk=none (perhaps when maxspeed > 30 mph). Verges will not be practicable for many pedestrians (Mums with pushchairs, toddlers, older people etc) so I think can be ignored.

This would still allow routing where no-one has surveyed or tagged sidewalk provision, and is therefore less likely to break places where there are pavements or paths. It also allows those cases where walking along the road is inadvisable to be mapped on a case-by-case basis.

Other refinements might include considering whether a road is urban or rural (Richard Fairhurst does this on cycle.travel): OS Open Data provides a decent data set of this & the one I generate from OSM is very similar.

On a broader community level: mapping presence of absence of pavements or other paths alongside main roads in the countryside (and when absent features of the verge) is probably something we should aim to do alongside completing speed limits for trunk roads. Much can be done from Mapillary images.

Jerry



On 8 March 2017 at 11:27, Stuart Reynolds <[hidden email]> wrote:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Dudley Ibbett

If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none as the default.   Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes avoiding such roads.  I must admit I don’t know what the legal status is when it comes to walking along a verge.  If enough people walk along a verge could/should it become sidewalk=*, surface=grass/ground/mud/...?  If there was a particular need to use a section of an A or B road I would currently have to go out and survey it or take a look at any suitable images online.

 

As a consequence of the above and my involvement in OSM I do now try and put in sidewalks as there is the potential to produce a much better map for walkers in rural areas using OSM.  Sidewalks are certainly a feature I would like to add to the maps I put on my Garmin GPS.  I’m not aware of any online map that displays sidewalks.  It would certainly be useful if there was one.

 

I suspect routing for walking may need to be different when it comes to rural and urban areas.  The latter tends to be about getting from A to B.  In rural areas routing is most likely to be about a limited distance starting and finishing at A and taking in specific features.

 

I would certainly encourage people to map sidewalks in rural areas as there seem to be no rules as to where they are likely to be found and they are a very useful map feature for walkers.


Dudley


From: Philip Barnes <[hidden email]>
Sent: 08 March 2017 12:49
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable
 
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:41 +0000, SK53 wrote:
Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their particular situation.
Absolutely, doing this could make many PROW inaccessible.

Phil (trigpoint)




As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the data which allows these routing situations to be better handled. The current tags which allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a sensible solution for your generic case would be to disallow pedestrian routing along A-roads which have sidewalk=none (perhaps when maxspeed > 30 mph). Verges will not be practicable for many pedestrians (Mums with pushchairs, toddlers, older people etc) so I think can be ignored.

This would still allow routing where no-one has surveyed or tagged sidewalk provision, and is therefore less likely to break places where there are pavements or paths. It also allows those cases where walking along the road is inadvisable to be mapped on a case-by-case basis.

Other refinements might include considering whether a road is urban or rural (Richard Fairhurst does this on cycle.travel): OS Open Data provides a decent data set of this & the one I generate from OSM is very similar.
cycle.travel
Smart Turns – new on cycle.travel's route-planner. New Saturday 23 April · 6. Today cycle.travel’s route-planner gets the biggest single improvement since it ...


On a broader community level: mapping presence of absence of pavements or other paths alongside main roads in the countryside (and when absent features of the verge) is probably something we should aim to do alongside completing speed limits for trunk roads. Much can be done from Mapillary images.

Jerry



On 8 March 2017 at 11:27, Stuart Reynolds <[hidden email]> wrote:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Dan S
Sounds like a quarterly project?

2017-03-09 6:05 GMT+00:00 Dudley Ibbett <[hidden email]>:

If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none as the default.   Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes avoiding such roads.  I must admit I don’t know what the legal status is when it comes to walking along a verge.  If enough people walk along a verge could/should it become sidewalk=*, surface=grass/ground/mud/...?  If there was a particular need to use a section of an A or B road I would currently have to go out and survey it or take a look at any suitable images online.

 

As a consequence of the above and my involvement in OSM I do now try and put in sidewalks as there is the potential to produce a much better map for walkers in rural areas using OSM.  Sidewalks are certainly a feature I would like to add to the maps I put on my Garmin GPS.  I’m not aware of any online map that displays sidewalks.  It would certainly be useful if there was one.

 

I suspect routing for walking may need to be different when it comes to rural and urban areas.  The latter tends to be about getting from A to B.  In rural areas routing is most likely to be about a limited distance starting and finishing at A and taking in specific features.

 

I would certainly encourage people to map sidewalks in rural areas as there seem to be no rules as to where they are likely to be found and they are a very useful map feature for walkers.


Dudley


From: Philip Barnes <[hidden email]>
Sent: 08 March 2017 12:49
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable
 
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:41 +0000, SK53 wrote:
Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their particular situation.
Absolutely, doing this could make many PROW inaccessible.

Phil (trigpoint)




As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the data which allows these routing situations to be better handled. The current tags which allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a sensible solution for your generic case would be to disallow pedestrian routing along A-roads which have sidewalk=none (perhaps when maxspeed > 30 mph). Verges will not be practicable for many pedestrians (Mums with pushchairs, toddlers, older people etc) so I think can be ignored.

This would still allow routing where no-one has surveyed or tagged sidewalk provision, and is therefore less likely to break places where there are pavements or paths. It also allows those cases where walking along the road is inadvisable to be mapped on a case-by-case basis.

Other refinements might include considering whether a road is urban or rural (Richard Fairhurst does this on cycle.travel): OS Open Data provides a decent data set of this & the one I generate from OSM is very similar.
Smart Turns – new on cycle.travel's route-planner. New Saturday 23 April · 6. Today cycle.travel’s route-planner gets the biggest single improvement since it ...


On a broader community level: mapping presence of absence of pavements or other paths alongside main roads in the countryside (and when absent features of the verge) is probably something we should aim to do alongside completing speed limits for trunk roads. Much can be done from Mapillary images.

Jerry



On 8 March 2017 at 11:27, Stuart Reynolds <[hidden email]> wrote:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Dudley Ibbett
On 09/03/2017 06:05, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
... I’m not aware of any online map that displays sidewalks.  It would certainly be useful if there was one.

 


Well, https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=53.02012&lon=-1.73005 does on unclassified, tertiary and secondary.  It doesn't on primary and trunk, which I'm aware was the original question here, because the same effect (an exaggerated casing, though in a different colour) is used for both features, though that could of course be changed.  The same approach could work for verges, though they're not mapped much yet.  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/38136 has a bit more detail.

A quick pan around with that will highlight a number of "problematic" issues (e.g. bridges) - any suggestions how to resolve those gratefully received.

For completeness, there's also a discussion going on at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2568 .

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Adam Snape
In reply to this post by Dudley Ibbett
"If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none as the default.   Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes avoiding such roads. "

Whereas I'm not generally put off by limited amounts of A or B road walking (though there are some I would not walk down). This subjectivity is a good reason why tagging foot=no would be wrong.

"I must admit I don’t know what the legal status is when it comes to walking along a verge."

Verges are part of the highway, so it is perfectly legal to walk down them.

"If enough people walk along a verge could/should it become sidewalk=*, surface=grass/ground/mud/...?"
I can't recall mapping any but there are some roads I am aware of where there are established, well-worn paths along a verge. I'd be inclined to map those as separate footways, maybe with the footway=sidewalk tag (possibly the only time I'd use that tag in the UK).

Adam

On 9 March 2017 at 06:05, Dudley Ibbett <[hidden email]> wrote:

If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none as the default.   Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes avoiding such roads.  I must admit I don’t know what the legal status is when it comes to walking along a verge.  If enough people walk along a verge could/should it become sidewalk=*, surface=grass/ground/mud/...?  If there was a particular need to use a section of an A or B road I would currently have to go out and survey it or take a look at any suitable images online.

 

As a consequence of the above and my involvement in OSM I do now try and put in sidewalks as there is the potential to produce a much better map for walkers in rural areas using OSM.  Sidewalks are certainly a feature I would like to add to the maps I put on my Garmin GPS.  I’m not aware of any online map that displays sidewalks.  It would certainly be useful if there was one.

 

I suspect routing for walking may need to be different when it comes to rural and urban areas.  The latter tends to be about getting from A to B.  In rural areas routing is most likely to be about a limited distance starting and finishing at A and taking in specific features.

 

I would certainly encourage people to map sidewalks in rural areas as there seem to be no rules as to where they are likely to be found and they are a very useful map feature for walkers.


Dudley


From: Philip Barnes <[hidden email]>
Sent: 08 March 2017 12:49
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable
 
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:41 +0000, SK53 wrote:
Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their particular situation.
Absolutely, doing this could make many PROW inaccessible.

Phil (trigpoint)




As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the data which allows these routing situations to be better handled. The current tags which allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a sensible solution for your generic case would be to disallow pedestrian routing along A-roads which have sidewalk=none (perhaps when maxspeed > 30 mph). Verges will not be practicable for many pedestrians (Mums with pushchairs, toddlers, older people etc) so I think can be ignored.

This would still allow routing where no-one has surveyed or tagged sidewalk provision, and is therefore less likely to break places where there are pavements or paths. It also allows those cases where walking along the road is inadvisable to be mapped on a case-by-case basis.

Other refinements might include considering whether a road is urban or rural (Richard Fairhurst does this on cycle.travel): OS Open Data provides a decent data set of this & the one I generate from OSM is very similar.
Smart Turns – new on cycle.travel's route-planner. New Saturday 23 April · 6. Today cycle.travel’s route-planner gets the biggest single improvement since it ...


On a broader community level: mapping presence of absence of pavements or other paths alongside main roads in the countryside (and when absent features of the verge) is probably something we should aim to do alongside completing speed limits for trunk roads. Much can be done from Mapillary images.

Jerry



On 8 March 2017 at 11:27, Stuart Reynolds <[hidden email]> wrote:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Dave F
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
FYI

On in Firefox & IE 10 the 'Control' button on your site displays the controls repeatedly one under the other. The 'Off' button removes only the last added. Wouldn't it be better if the 'Control' was an on/off toggle?

 
 
On 09/03/2017 09:06, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 09/03/2017 06:05, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
... I’m not aware of any online map that displays sidewalks.  It would certainly be useful if there was one.

 


Well, https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=53.02012&lon=-1.73005 does on unclassified, tertiary and secondary.  It doesn't on primary and trunk, which I'm aware was the original question here, because the same effect (an exaggerated casing, though in a different colour) is used for both features, though that could of course be changed.  The same approach could work for verges, though they're not mapped much yet.  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/38136 has a bit more detail.

A quick pan around with that will highlight a number of "problematic" issues (e.g. bridges) - any suggestions how to resolve those gratefully received.

For completeness, there's also a discussion going on at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2568 .

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

Andy Townsend
On 09/03/2017 12:40, Dave F wrote:
>
> On in Firefox & IE 10 the 'Control' button on your site displays the
> controls repeatedly one under the other. The 'Off' button removes only
> the last added. Wouldn't it be better if the 'Control' was an on/off
> toggle?

It would - it's just waiting for the usual "round tuit" :)

Cheers,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Legally permitted vs inadvisable

David Woolley
In reply to this post by Dudley Ibbett
On 09/03/17 06:05, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> I’m not aware of any online map that displays sidewalks.

http://product.itoworld.com/map/126


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Loading...