Forum Replies Created
Yes, indeed, thanks to the Mapsforge volunteers for this improvement.
An early preview of Voluntary themes that work well with curved text for street names, now available in the most recent versions of Locus and Orux (beta at present). Plus other more minor improvements.August 29, 2019 at 13:13 in reply to: Can't Install Maps Or Themes on Orux 7.4 With Android 8 (Oreo) #30642
When I was short of available memory on my phone I had to download the map to my PC and then side load the unzipped map to my phone.
A minor bugfix to properly display hiking nodes in countries where they are used.
In this version of the Voluntary Mapsforge theme for Locus, dotted and dashed lines now scale properly for Mapsforge maps, as they always did for LoMaps, thanks to Locus implementing parts of Mapsforge v5.
My understanding is that the tagmapping.xml file is used to produce the maps on this site from OSM data. An “appropriate” tagmapping.xml file (varying from – shall we say – tagmapping-min.xml to tagmapping-max.xml) is used according to the amount of detail data expected to be displayed in that particular region.
Voluntary theme has been updated again. Most significantly, for Locus version 3.38+ which has a new map rendering engine and a different approach to scaling.
Links to the key are in the previous post.
On the UK_Wales map, paths seem to appear at zoom level 12 and bridleways at zoom level 13, while on your standard Great Britain map they both appear at zoom level 13, which follows tagmapping-urban.xml
Did you do a custom tag mapping for these particular maps? If so, why do bridleways require a larger zoom to appear than paths, considering that they are most likely more visible than paths?
I can’t think what might be wrong. Could you upload some screenshots maybe?
There is indeed though it does depend on your version of Android. There are different quirks with different manufacturers and different flavours of Android.
OR a different technique:
One or other of the techniques will probably work.
Good proposal. However, please be aware that it is very nation specific and only really applies to England & Wales (see posts above)
I think it ought to be:
(only if bicycle resp. foot is not already tagged)
-> bicycle=yes (or, in my opinion bicycle=designated) [NOT Northern Ireland as far as I know]
(only if bicycle resp. foot is not already tagged)
with possibly an additional tag for byway_open_to_all_traffic
The Voluntary theme as it stands will pick up these tags and show allowable access for foot, bike or both by the colour and length of dashes on paths and by the same colour dashes but thinner overlaid on the representation of tracks or private roads.
I suggest that designated is used instead of simply yes as it gives scope at a later stage to indicate known public rights of way.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I have been impressed by how well the UK is mapped. In general it is as accurate as OS maps and more up to date.
I suspect the access tagging is insufficiently comprehensive to attempt to render PROWs. Partly this is because most of the relevant data is copyright.
Generally speaking I have found that mapped paths in England are almost invariably OK to use unless the access has been tagged otherwise, so marking paths as private when they are tagged as private is sufficient.
Tracks are more difficult and I would tend to assume they are private unless tagged otherwise.
Byways Open to All Traffic and Restricted Byways generally are tagged with the access details. I suppose it would be possible to do a tag transform on designated:restricted_byway etc if the data merits it.
(What I would really like to see is Access Land tagged and rendered but I don’t think the data is there yet. This is significant information that the maps are not showing.)
The legal situation regarding Public Rights of Way (PROW) on private land in the UK as I understand it is as below. PROWs are in addition to the Queen’s Highway, which includes all ways owned by the statutory authorities and usually maintained by them.
There is not one set of laws for the whole of the UK.
1. England and Wales
There are three types of PROW — public footpath (walkers), public bridleway (on horse or on foot, and also on bicycle) , byway (all traffic). A byway may be restricted (no motor vehicles). There is no presumption that a track is a PROW. The only reliable indication of a legal right of way in the mapping is a “designated” tag, To complicate matters bridleways are legally designated as for access on foot or on horse but legally access on bike is also permitted unless specifically forbidden. I reckon that should mean they are also designated for bike but the OSM Wiki for UK access just has foot=designated, horse=designated, bike=yes.
The local authority has a supposed responsibility to sign public footpaths, public bridleways and byways as such where they meet the national road network. So if a public footpath ran along a private track, there should be a sign saying public footpath. (There may also legitimately be a sign saying private because it remains private property although you are allowed to be there.) Certainly in the past, local authorities were not uniform in their response to this duty.
There is a presumption of right of access everywhere
3. Northern Ireland
NI has very few public rights of way. Most access depends on the goodwill and tolerance of the landowner.There are however three types of PROW — footpath (walkers), bridleway (on foot and on horse) and carriageway (all traffic).
Finally, just to add that currently the right of way information on OS maps cannot be used for OSM maps although OS make the rest of the data freely available in various forms. OS say that the copyright in the rights of way information is owned by the local councils not them.
Actually I have my doubts over how this route should be tagged. Certainly the sections all ought to have correct access tags including bike=yes or bike=designated. This will help the rendering.
I don’t know however whether this is really a national cycle network. Unlike other ncn routes (in the UK at least) it’s not accessible by standard bike. I can’t find any relevant guidance either.
- This reply was modified 11 months ago by JohnPercy.
And yes, NCN etc. are the cycling routes, if there are only horse riding routes etc. it’s not shown
In principle, that’s correct but as Christian has already pointed out, the script is not resolving the multi-values such as network = “nhn;nwn” so adding ncn would not help at present.
Sometimes the scripts for resolving these relations are ignoring these multi_relations.
For the relation in question it should resolve the hiking part.
Thats a bug – I will take a look at it