Changeset: 28232563
(no comment)
Closed by cnedramblers
Tags
created_by | iD 1.6.2 |
---|---|
imagery_used | Bing |
Discussion
-
Comment from robert
Please don't abuse the name tag to add the fact that roads happen to also be part of some-walk-or-other. If you really want to do this you should use route relations (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route), though you may have to upgrade to using JOSM to do that properly.
In fact the Chesterfield Round Walk seems to already be done as a relation.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/68834
I've reverted a lot of the altered names in my changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28264322
-
Comment from Richard
Despite the old grump above (we love him really), great to have you on board. :)
-
Comment from EdLoach
You might also like to look at other maps that use OpenStreetMap data where the routes are more obvious, such as http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=13&lat=53.2359&lon=-1.45586&hill=0 or http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=14&lat=53.20775&lon=-1.5015&layers=000B0
-
Comment from cnedramblers
Thanks for all the comments. I must admit that as a walker I was totally unaware of the waymarked trails site. But so are many others. I accept that applying mutiple tags to highways or footpaths is a problem, but footpaths and trails were in many cases there centuries before tarmac roads and it is a pity the openstreetmap site does not incorporate them all into a network. Footpaths are poorly served in mapping. Public Rights of Way only exist when they are on the physical map of the County Councils. There are attempts at digitisation by the County Councils and sites such as rowmaps, but no fully authoritative version. Given the 2026 deadline for recording all rights of way (or losing them) this is unfortunate. I'll remove my additions to the Chesterfield Round Walk as this obviously isn't a site that takes rights of way seriously and I don't want to abuse its principles.
-
Comment from EdLoach
I hope my comment didn't mislead you, as I was out in the rain 9 days ago collecting GPS traces and photos of local (to me) public footpaths that still needed adding to OpenStreetMap. I was just trying to help point out that the default view of the data when you come to this website isn't the best view for UK public footpaths and routes.
-
Comment from SK53
I must emphasise we take rights of way very seriously and would really welcome your contributions.
You can read about some of the work involving OSM and footpath mapping on my blog http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/footpaths or watch Dudley Ibbett talking mapping paths in the Peak District http://lanyrd.com/2013/sotm/scphkh/.
-
Comment from Richard
Please don't remove them! OSM takes rights of way very seriously, more than any other mapping organisation other than the Ordnance Survey.
At the same time we're a global project, so we can't show every single peculiarity of every single country in this map view. The main view on openstreetmap.org itself has to be a global "lowest common denominator". But that's why OSM encourages others to take our data and make their own specialised maps from it - for walking, cycling and a thousand other uses.
robert was being a grump about the manner in which you added the tracks. But that's the fault of the site making the "ideal way" non-obvious to a beginner, not any fault of yours, and he was out of order in not recognising that.
-
Comment from robert
Hey, there's nothing in the Terms of Service about not being a grumpy bastard.
-
Comment from cnedramblers
I can try and get colleagues to annotate NE Derbyshire footpaths that are Public Rights of Way with the County Council's terminology (e.g. NE 2 46/1) - as rowmaps does - but only if it adds value ?
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Yes - public rights of way numbers are usually added using the prow_ref key (see http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref), and would certainly be useful to have - although of course the source has to be licence-compatible (not derived from OS non-open mapping). See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/UK_local_councils#Government_use_of_OpenStreetMap_data and links for a bit more info on it. If you're talking to the council about "that path that runs north of Bolehill Lane east of the stream" you're just reliant on a description, not on an OS-described map, so that should be OK.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
One more question about the route - back in 2008 when I walked it there used to be a Chesterfield Round Walk route marker around here http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/68834#map=18/53.18623/-1.45678 where the highlighted relation leaves Bolehill Lane. You've added the name to this footpath http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42384438 and also this one http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42384441 suggesting that the route has been amended to run north from Bolehill Lane and then West. Has it been rerouted? There's a similar discrepancy near Linacre Middle Reservoir - does it run east of that or west of it? There's also a slight difference in Far Tupton Wood but my recollection is that there's no explicit signage there of which of the two paths through the wood it could follow.
Ways (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |