The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

SomeoneElse
A couple of weeks ago I spent a very cold day walking up and down part
of the Monsal Trail - essentially from Little Longstone to the A6.

It has been remapped since the tunnels reopened, but is in places a bit
of a hodge-podge, so I propose to standardise it a bit as follows:

o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and
highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track
throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land
Rovers), but with appropriate access tags (which is I think* foot and
bicycle=yes or permissive, and probably horse=yes or permissive,
vehicle=no) and also surface and lit tags.

o Where the name tag incorporates both a tunnel name and a trail name
(like with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/116465140) move
the tunnel name to some other tag.  Although I'm normally sqeamish about
having paths labelled after the most well-known trail that uses them, in
the case of the Monsal Trail I'm tempted to leave the "name=Monsal
Trail" labelling, because that's what the locals would refer to it as.

o Some of the ways that formed the old Monsal Trail before the tunnels
reopened are still present in OSM (and in some cases far from obvious on
the ground).  Where these are tagged as bicycle-appropriate but clearly
aren't I'll remove that tagging; in other case if it looks like a way's
no longer in use I'll stuck some kind of fixme or note on it.  Another
example is the "cycleway" linking the Monsal Trail and Cressbrook that
is barely discernable as a footpath.  Investigating all those is
definitely a summer job, though.

o Where joining paths are pretty obviously in the wrong place (according
to a GPS trace each way, other people's traces, and what you can make of
the imagery) I'll move them, but otherwise I'll not mess with the geometry.

Anyway, if anyone disagrees or wants to suggest changes to any of the
above please shout up - I'm asking here first rather than jumping in and
just changing to avoid going around in circles with different people's
edits.

Cheers,
Andy

* If anyone could correct this I'd be grateful if they could fill in
here.  I'm pretty sure what's there now (which implies vehicle=yes)
isn't correct - if someone tried to start a horse carriage service from
the A6 to Little Longstone I'm sure that it would be frowned upon.



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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Jason Woollacott
For Tunnels and Bridges, I've been using

tunnel:name
bridge:name

which allows me to use the name tag for the road/path/etc.

Jason (UniEagle)

-----Original Message-----
From: SomeoneElse
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 6:44 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

A couple of weeks ago I spent a very cold day walking up and down part
of the Monsal Trail - essentially from Little Longstone to the A6.

It has been remapped since the tunnels reopened, but is in places a bit
of a hodge-podge, so I propose to standardise it a bit as follows:

o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and
highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track
throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land
Rovers), but with appropriate access tags (which is I think* foot and
bicycle=yes or permissive, and probably horse=yes or permissive,
vehicle=no) and also surface and lit tags.

o Where the name tag incorporates both a tunnel name and a trail name
(like with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/116465140) move
the tunnel name to some other tag.  Although I'm normally sqeamish about
having paths labelled after the most well-known trail that uses them, in
the case of the Monsal Trail I'm tempted to leave the "name=Monsal
Trail" labelling, because that's what the locals would refer to it as.

o Some of the ways that formed the old Monsal Trail before the tunnels
reopened are still present in OSM (and in some cases far from obvious on
the ground).  Where these are tagged as bicycle-appropriate but clearly
aren't I'll remove that tagging; in other case if it looks like a way's
no longer in use I'll stuck some kind of fixme or note on it.  Another
example is the "cycleway" linking the Monsal Trail and Cressbrook that
is barely discernable as a footpath.  Investigating all those is
definitely a summer job, though.

o Where joining paths are pretty obviously in the wrong place (according
to a GPS trace each way, other people's traces, and what you can make of
the imagery) I'll move them, but otherwise I'll not mess with the geometry.

Anyway, if anyone disagrees or wants to suggest changes to any of the
above please shout up - I'm asking here first rather than jumping in and
just changing to avoid going around in circles with different people's
edits.

Cheers,
Andy

* If anyone could correct this I'd be grateful if they could fill in
here.  I'm pretty sure what's there now (which implies vehicle=yes)
isn't correct - if someone tried to start a horse carriage service from
the A6 to Little Longstone I'm sure that it would be frowned upon.



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

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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Ed Loach
Jason wrote:

> For Tunnels and Bridges, I've been using
>
> tunnel:name
> bridge:name
>
> which allows me to use the name tag for the road/path/etc.

The key bridge_name seems more popular than bridge:name
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=bridge_name

but tunnel:name seems more popular than tunnel_name:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=tunnel_name

I'm guessing that this is because there was a bridge_name proposal
in existence long before bridge:name was added to the Key:bridge
wiki page.

Just an observation

Ed


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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Dave F.
In reply to this post by SomeoneElse
On 15/12/2012 18:44, SomeoneElse wrote:

> A couple of weeks ago I spent a very cold day walking up and down part
> of the Monsal Trail - essentially from Little Longstone to the A6.
>
> It has been remapped since the tunnels reopened, but is in places a
> bit of a hodge-podge, so I propose to standardise it a bit as follows:
>
> o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and
> highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track
> throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land
> Rovers), but with appropriate access tags (which is I think* foot and
> bicycle=yes or permissive, and probably horse=yes or permissive,
> vehicle=no) and also surface and lit tags.

I don't know this route; do motorised vehicles have access to all of it?
If not I don't think highway=track should be used throughout. According
to the wiki it is accessible to all vehicles.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Track.

>
> o Where the name tag incorporates both a tunnel name and a trail name
> (like with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/116465140) move
> the tunnel name to some other tag.  Although I'm normally sqeamish
> about having paths labelled after the most well-known trail that uses
> them, in the case of the Monsal Trail I'm tempted to leave the
> "name=Monsal Trail" labelling, because that's what the locals would
> refer to it as.

Route relations were invented to specifically solve this problem. The
Monsal Trail is a route that uses these ways. Other named routes could
also use them, now or in the future. Putting the route in a relation
avoids naming clashes. See the numerous NCN routes as examples.

>
> o Some of the ways that formed the old Monsal Trail before the tunnels
> reopened are still present in OSM (and in some cases far from obvious
> on the ground).  Where these are tagged as bicycle-appropriate but
> clearly aren't I'll remove that tagging;

Again, I don't know the specifics, but just because the route has be
moved does that mean you can't cycle on the old ways?


Cheers
Dave F.

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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Dave F.
I've just looked it up in OSM & notice there is already a Relation for
this route. This is the only place that should have the name=Monsal
Trail. It should be removed from any ways that have it tagged as such.

Cheers
Dave F.

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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)-2
In reply to this post by Dave F.
A trail such as Monsal (and many others that follow disused rail lines) is
normally accessible by vehicle for maintenance purposes. It's not open to
the general public as it's a leisure route for walkers, cyclists and horse
riders (though I can't recall ever seeing a horse on there in all the times
I've visited).

Cheers
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave F. [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 16 December 2012 01:07
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
>
> On 15/12/2012 18:44, SomeoneElse wrote:
> > A couple of weeks ago I spent a very cold day walking up and down part
> > of the Monsal Trail - essentially from Little Longstone to the A6.
> >
> > It has been remapped since the tunnels reopened, but is in places a
> > bit of a hodge-podge, so I propose to standardise it a bit as follows:
> >
> > o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and
> > highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track
> > throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land
> > Rovers), but with appropriate access tags (which is I think* foot and
> > bicycle=yes or permissive, and probably horse=yes or permissive,
> > vehicle=no) and also surface and lit tags.
>
> I don't know this route; do motorised vehicles have access to all of it?
> If not I don't think highway=track should be used throughout. According to
> the wiki it is accessible to all vehicles.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Track.
>
> >
> > o Where the name tag incorporates both a tunnel name and a trail name
> > (like with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/116465140)
> move
> > the tunnel name to some other tag.  Although I'm normally sqeamish
> > about having paths labelled after the most well-known trail that uses
> > them, in the case of the Monsal Trail I'm tempted to leave the
> > "name=Monsal Trail" labelling, because that's what the locals would
> > refer to it as.
>
> Route relations were invented to specifically solve this problem. The
Monsal

> Trail is a route that uses these ways. Other named routes could also use
> them, now or in the future. Putting the route in a relation avoids naming
> clashes. See the numerous NCN routes as examples.
>
> >
> > o Some of the ways that formed the old Monsal Trail before the tunnels
> > reopened are still present in OSM (and in some cases far from obvious
> > on the ground).  Where these are tagged as bicycle-appropriate but
> > clearly aren't I'll remove that tagging;
>
> Again, I don't know the specifics, but just because the route has be moved
> does that mean you can't cycle on the old ways?
>
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Gregory-2

Should it not be highway=track, access:motorcar=no (access:foot=yes, etc if desired).
That lets me know I can cycle 2-abreast, it is fairly firm (track grade could also be specified), and if I fall off then an ambulance driver can follow his specialised satnav to get to me. I have had a situation a few years ago where OSM & some adrenalin helped me get an ambulance on the C2C, the printed cycle map we had was unhelpful.

I'd also make a point about route relations, but that has been done already.

Greg.


On 16 December 2012 08:26, Andy Robinson <[hidden email]> wrote:
A trail such as Monsal (and many others that follow disused rail lines) is
normally accessible by vehicle for maintenance purposes. It's not open to
the general public as it's a leisure route for walkers, cyclists and horse
riders (though I can't recall ever seeing a horse on there in all the times
I've visited).

Cheers
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave F. [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 16 December 2012 01:07
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
>
> On 15/12/2012 18:44, SomeoneElse wrote:
> > A couple of weeks ago I spent a very cold day walking up and down part
> > of the Monsal Trail - essentially from Little Longstone to the A6.
> >
> > It has been remapped since the tunnels reopened, but is in places a
> > bit of a hodge-podge, so I propose to standardise it a bit as follows:
> >
> > o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and
> > highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track
> > throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land
> > Rovers), but with appropriate access tags (which is I think* foot and
> > bicycle=yes or permissive, and probably horse=yes or permissive,
> > vehicle=no) and also surface and lit tags.
>
> I don't know this route; do motorised vehicles have access to all of it?
> If not I don't think highway=track should be used throughout. According to
> the wiki it is accessible to all vehicles.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Track.
>
> >
> > o Where the name tag incorporates both a tunnel name and a trail name
> > (like with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/116465140)
> move
> > the tunnel name to some other tag.  Although I'm normally sqeamish
> > about having paths labelled after the most well-known trail that uses
> > them, in the case of the Monsal Trail I'm tempted to leave the
> > "name=Monsal Trail" labelling, because that's what the locals would
> > refer to it as.
>
> Route relations were invented to specifically solve this problem. The
Monsal
> Trail is a route that uses these ways. Other named routes could also use
> them, now or in the future. Putting the route in a relation avoids naming
> clashes. See the numerous NCN routes as examples.
>
> >
> > o Some of the ways that formed the old Monsal Trail before the tunnels
> > reopened are still present in OSM (and in some cases far from obvious
> > on the ground).  Where these are tagged as bicycle-appropriate but
> > clearly aren't I'll remove that tagging;
>
> Again, I don't know the specifics, but just because the route has be moved
> does that mean you can't cycle on the old ways?
>
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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



--
Gregory
[hidden email]
http://www.livingwithdragons.com

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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by SomeoneElse
Someoneelse wrote:
> o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path
> and highway=track that exists currently, replace with
> highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail
> maintenance folks' Land Rovers)

To my mind, the "duck tagging" principle means that highway=cycleway is more appropriate. It quacks like a shared-use cycleway so we should tag it as one, unlike a track that is (say) regularly used by forestry traffic or agricultural vehicles. There are lots of 'rail trails' around Britain that are tagged as highway=cycleway and it would seem a shame to depart from established practice.

cheers
Richard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Philip Barnes
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 06:22 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Someoneelse wrote:
> > o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path
> > and highway=track that exists currently, replace with
> > highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail
> > maintenance folks' Land Rovers)
>
> To my mind, the "duck tagging" principle means that highway=cycleway is more
> appropriate. It quacks like a shared-use cycleway so we should tag it as
> one, unlike a track that is (say) regularly used by forestry traffic or
> agricultural vehicles. There are lots of 'rail trails' around Britain that
> are tagged as highway=cycleway and it would seem a shame to depart from
> established practice.
>
+1
I have walked the Monsal Trail many times, and cycleway does seem to me
the way it should be tagged. Maybe add horse=yes if appropriate.

Phil


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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

Dudley Ibbett
Hi

I use to walk this route before the tunnels were open.  Please keep the paths that use to run around the tunnels.  The might be less used with the tunnels now open but they have spectacular views.  I was never sure of their designation but presumably if the stiles still exist access can still be obtained.  It also appears to be open access South of the Trail so the designation may not matter.

In terms of tagging it appears that highway=cycleway is used for the Tissington and High Peak Trails (also disused railway lines in the region), although cycleway=track has been used on the Tissington Trail as well.

Horses are allowed to use the trail so: horse=yes would be appropriate.

Regards

Dudley

> From: [hidden email]

> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:30:52 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
>
> On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 06:22 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Someoneelse wrote:
> > > o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path
> > > and highway=track that exists currently, replace with
> > > highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail
> > > maintenance folks' Land Rovers)
> >
> > To my mind, the "duck tagging" principle means that highway=cycleway is more
> > appropriate. It quacks like a shared-use cycleway so we should tag it as
> > one, unlike a track that is (say) regularly used by forestry traffic or
> > agricultural vehicles. There are lots of 'rail trails' around Britain that
> > are tagged as highway=cycleway and it would seem a shame to depart from
> > established practice.
> >
> +1
> I have walked the Monsal Trail many times, and cycleway does seem to me
> the way it should be tagged. Maybe add horse=yes if appropriate.
>
> Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

SomeoneElse
Thanks to everyone who replied.

I'll go with "cycleway", since that seems to be the most popular
description of it.  I'll try and address the sense of "2 abreast is
possible" and "an ambulance can get down there if necessary" by sticking
a width tag on it.

Re the other thoughts:

Although there is already a Monsal Trail relation*, I think that if you
asked a local "what's the name of that thing those people are walking
along" they'd say "The Monsal Trail", rather than e.g. "The Pennine
Bridleway" (another route relation that runs down here) or "the former
Midland Railway".

I'll move the tunnel names to "tunnel:name".

I won't delete the "over the top" paths (I added some of them myself in
2009!), although these will need resurveying when it's a bit warmer and
dryer.  Some of the paths do still exist (including at least one signed
as access land), but some don't (or at least there's a new fence in the
way).

Cheers,
Andy

* and "adding route names as way names incorrectly" was my contribution
to this "pet peeve" help question:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/1022/what-are-the-most-common-mapping-mistakes-that-other-users-make


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