Page 2 of 2

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 1 Oct 2020, 10:41pm
by geomannie
LittleGreyCat wrote:Very useful information about what isn't in OS maps.

I was riding the other day using my Garmin Edge Explore and looking at the map and thinking that it would be nice with a little more detail, like contour lines and local features.

I usually use it with a pre planned map for navigation, but it can also navigate you to a chosen point and the lack of enough planning detail would be enough to scupper that.

I can't say that I have used the Garmin Edge model but I would be surprised if it didn't allow you to import OSM image files with 10m contour lines such as those available for free at https://talkytoaster.me.uk/ or http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/. Worth checking.

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 1 Oct 2020, 10:43pm
by mjr
Zulu Eleven wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:OS has a very partial selection of points of interest. For example, there are two public water points on the Ridgeway between Streatley and Ogbourne. Neither of these are marked on OS maps. (They're not mentioned or marked in the KAW guidebook, either, which slightly surprised me.) OS has some pubs but no cafes, let alone bike shops.


But as we've all seen the problem is the reliability of the databases - pub closures are a huge problem (and i expect will lead to the removal of that data set from the maps), but nothing as compared to bike shop closures. similarly, theres no reliable dataset for water points, they are the properly of the landowner and can be withdrawn at any time. As a general rule in life, if I have the choice of no information or potentially duff information - I believe I am safer in the knowledge that that only one of those two is likely to get me killed.

How is the unexpected closure of a pub going to get you killed?

OS is not great at showing waymarked cycle routes. (It has the NCN, sometimes, a bit out of date.) OS doesn't even attempt to map urban cycling infrastructure. OS doesn't record path surfaces, or obstacles like stiles and gates. And so on.


I'm going to argue that the fault there lies with Sustrans, who for years refused to supply their NCN mapping data to other sources for financial reasons, and only finally entered into agreement with OS last year.

Then I'm going to argue that the faults in OSM lie with CUK, who haven't supplied any of their routing data to OSM for financial reasons wanting to sell guidebooks and memberships.

Or will CUK upload the King Alfred's Way to OSM?

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 1 Oct 2020, 10:57pm
by Zulu Eleven
mjr wrote:Then I'm going to argue that the faults in OSM lie with CUK, who haven't supplied any of their routing data to OSM for financial reasons wanting to sell guidebooks and memberships.


You mean the guidebook and routing data that are free to download :roll:

Or will CUK upload the King Alfred's Way to OSM?



I certainly won't be. I'll also not hesitate to update or alter the route in future if we feel its necessary. In fact IMO your argument that CUK should be doing this undermines what you claim to be the advantage of OSM.

Now then, for others, here's some video showing just what you cant do with OSM - as per the DS solution from the boys at Catterick

https://youtu.be/_mXt3Zjvw5U

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 2 Oct 2020, 9:33am
by Richard Fairhurst
mjr wrote:Or will CUK upload the King Alfred's Way to OSM?


To be fair, OSM probably wouldn't want it - it's not waymarked and so, in principle, it's no different from the thousands of other recommended cycling routes in guidebooks, leaflets and websites.

The NCN is a waymarked, on-the-ground fact, which is why it's on OSM (and also because OSM sends surveyors into the countryside, which OS hasn't done for years).

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 2 Oct 2020, 9:58am
by simonineaston
Richard Fairhurst wrote:There are (at least!) two relevant Richard Oliver pieces in back issues of Sheetlines, the journal of the Charles Close Society:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/char ... e/Sh51.pdf
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/shee ... /Sh104.pdf
He also did a piece in the Cartographic Journal for June 2001 on "Mapping for Cycle Touring in Britain; Past, Present, and a Possible Future", which is a great read but not available unless you pay £££ to the journal publishers.
Thanks ever-so for these, Richard - a proper good read! I did have plans for this morning, but they are now 'on-hold'... ;-)

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 2 Oct 2020, 10:52am
by Queens Park Pete
slowster wrote:The mass trespass on Kinder Scout helped to make rights of way official which had previously had not been recognised by law, and as the official mapping body the OS put those rights of way on its maps. If you don't think the current rights of way network is adequate, then you might not regard OS maps PROW information so positively, because it reinforces the idea that the PROW (outside Scotland) are now set in stone with little or no prospect of significant change or improvement.

I think OSM may act as a driver to improve the PROW network, possibly even to pass legislation giving similar countryside access as Scotland already has. It might ultimately have a similar impact to the Kinder Scout trespass.


Interesting point. However I know through my other life as a walking guide that Ramblers have given a lot of time and money into nailing down more of these unrecorded routes into legally guaranteed PROWs "forever." At least these routes will be hard for the wealthy and powerful to remove. Additional campaigns about demanding further "rights to roam" can continue. No one I know in Ramblers is remotely interested in stopping at those contested PROWs only.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/ ... -manifesto.
Not sure if you are aware of this interesting take on wider access!

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 2 Oct 2020, 11:23am
by mjr
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
mjr wrote:Or will CUK upload the King Alfred's Way to OSM?


To be fair, OSM probably wouldn't want it - it's not waymarked and so, in principle, it's no different from the thousands of other recommended cycling routes in guidebooks, leaflets and websites.

I didn't realise there was no intention to waymark it.

I'm fed up with stealth cycle routes. They do cycle touring in the UK a disservice, similar to how the men in black doing stealth time trials in the early mornings held back UK cycle racing for decades. They compare badly to the lists of destinations and distances on signs at cycle route access points in other countries nearby. It's bizarre if CUK is joining in this effort to push touring further underground.

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 2 Oct 2020, 11:31am
by Queens Park Pete
I think the concept of "stealth Cycle routes" would be fair if applied to tarnmac routes. One of my concerns with NCN on tarmac routes is they are rarely accompanied by any signage warning motorists they are borrowing a bit of the NCN and to expect bikes- as is common practice on French Veloroutes.
However on bridleways and byways the feeling we are smuggling ourselves through the country, away from civilisation, on ways thousands of years in the making is part of their appeal to me at least!

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 4 Oct 2020, 8:44pm
by Slowroad
Occasionally Cycle.travel spots these- but also regularly directs me away from useful connections- presumably because OSM hasnot registered a continuation of a route even when it has drawn it !

That explains something that has been very frustrating - can't get cycle.travel to follow a route I know is straightforwardly possible (as opposed to something a bit stealthy). Mind you that is probably outweighed by the times it has shown me a route that the OS/Sustrans map doesn't think exists...

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 4 Oct 2020, 8:52pm
by pete75
mjr wrote:[
Then I'm going to argue that the faults in OSM lie with CUK, who haven't supplied any of their routing data to OSM for financial reasons wanting to sell guidebooks and memberships.

Or will CUK upload the King Alfred's Way to OSM?


You mean this King Alfred's Way which CUK provide as a free GPX download on their website? https://www.cyclinguk.org/route/king-al ... -gpx-route

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 5 Oct 2020, 8:30am
by mjr
pete75 wrote:
mjr wrote:Or will CUK upload the King Alfred's Way to OSM?


You mean this King Alfred's Way which CUK provide as a free GPX download on their website? https://www.cyclinguk.org/route/king-al ... -gpx-route

Yes, that restricted GPX behind a "beware of the leopard" which (as I understand it) couldn't be uploaded onto OSM even if waymarked without copyright permission that isn't granted there, and which CUK don't mention on https://shop.cyclinguk.org/king-alfreds-way-route-guide (because it would hurt sales?)

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 5 Oct 2020, 8:58am
by pete75
mjr wrote:
pete75 wrote:
mjr wrote:Or will CUK upload the King Alfred's Way to OSM?


You mean this King Alfred's Way which CUK provide as a free GPX download on their website? https://www.cyclinguk.org/route/king-al ... -gpx-route

Yes, that restricted GPX behind a "beware of the leopard" which (as I understand it) couldn't be uploaded onto OSM even if waymarked without copyright permission that isn't granted there, and which CUK don't mention on https://shop.cyclinguk.org/king-alfreds-way-route-guide (because it would hurt sales?)

A simple web search took me straight to the free GPX files. Why do you think CUK would make GPX files available for download if they didn't expect or want them to be used by being uploaded into a mapping system. Easily uploaded into something like Bikemap or ride with gps and displayed on OSM or whatever. The full route guide can also be downloaded as a pdf for free on the same web page which, incidentally, contains no reference to leopards.

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 5 Oct 2020, 11:10am
by geomannie
This is an interesting discussion, but mainly for the way in which it points out the inadequacy of all maps. What I mean by that is that a map is a fixed representation of a landscape where what is included in the map is selected or rejected by the mapmakers. As non-professional mapmaker, but someone who has needed to make maps for various purposes, these truths are brought home to you when you are faced with the sudden decisions of inclusion/exclusion vs clarity of display. It’s complicated.

All maps are

• Selective in the data/features displayed, political.
• Either parochial, showing data relevant to an area or country or global showing a common set of features in a common style.
• Out of date

To expand on this. OSM is a global standard. Why should it have a special annotation for English rights of ways, ones that don't even apply in Scotland? This would be perverse: to be consistent we would need similar but not identical features for all political areas. By saying that maps are out of date means that the UK specifically, the World in general, is a dynamic place. As soon as a map is published, something changes. OSM tries to keep on top of this by having thousands of contributors and very rapid updates cycles, but even so it is full of errors & omissions. I am not sure of the update cycle of OS but I know that to buy a paper map is to buy a historical snapshot.

It’s a huge topic and one that can be discussed for ever. Both OS and OSM are excellent & complimentary products.

Coming back to the issue of English rights of way. If you know where the right of way lies, then absolutely one should download a GPX onto your GPS unit to display over either an OS or OSM background. In a small way you are on your way to being your own mapmaker, choosing information that is valuable to you for your own reasons.

Mapping is fundamentally personal.

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 6 Oct 2020, 3:12pm
by JakobW
As it happens, my copy of the print KAW guide arrived this morning. It looks good - nice photos and route descriptions, with lots of interesting things to see on and near the route noted. As a ring-bound A5 book it will fit nicely in a bar bag or map case.

The maps are Landrangers reduced to 90% size; with the gloss paper and digital printing they're unavoidably a bit murkier than a real OS map, but they're perfectly readable. At a member price of £12+p&p I'd say the guide's a bargain - you'd have to buy at least 5 or 6 Landrangers to cover the route.

Re: OS vs OSM for cycling

Posted: 6 Oct 2020, 3:32pm
by Zulu Eleven
JakobW wrote:As it happens, my copy of the print KAW guide arrived this morning. It looks good - nice photos and route descriptions, with lots of interesting things to see on and near the route noted. As a ring-bound A5 book it will fit nicely in a bar bag or map case.

The maps are Landrangers reduced to 90% size; with the gloss paper and digital printing they're unavoidably a bit murkier than a real OS map, but they're perfectly readable. At a member price of £12+p&p I'd say the guide's a bargain - you'd have to buy at least 5 or 6 Landrangers to cover the route.


Seven actually,

D33D302D-AFFC-44B4-B703-D2B8FEBE3A7D.jpeg