> The only way to determine this is by reference to the DM.

Not really. As someone said above. If the council puts up a sign saying "public footpath" then we can infer that it is a legal right of way on foot.

It's completely analogous to how we collect road names. We don't copy road names from an official list or official map. We do so from the road signs that the council puts up, which is meant to reflect this list.

It's of course possible that a sign might be wrong (particularly in the spelling of road signs etc.) - but we should just map what is actually on the signs - whether something says "public footpath" or Acacia Avenue etc.

Quichina: If you can't tell which direction the path goes, follow the most logical route at the time. This will typically be a straight line across a field, or following field boundaries. If necessary, back-track to the last waymark arrow and check the direction. Follow a straight line from there in the direction the waymark arrow is pointing. Did it lead you to a stile, gate, or a post with another waymark arrow etc (even if broken). If so, you can be happy enough to mark that on OSM. If it didn't and you've reached the edge of a field, then you might need to track along the field boundary until you do find one. When you eventually find it, it's useful to back-track from this point to where you where you originally were (and knew you were still on the footpath).

If all fails, approach from the other direction, and see if you can end up on the original route.

If there are tall crops obscuring vision and possible routes through, then you might need to come back at a different time of year when there aren't. Growing crops on the line of a public right of way is not allowed and you could ask the council to sort this out.

If you, who after all is out actually looking to find the correct route, can't follow the correct route, then chances are not many others will be able to using the signs alone. Get onto the council and ask them to add additional waymarks or signs. The council have a duty to waymark routes where the situation is not clear.

If you do measurements at the same time on two consecutive days, the alignment of the satellites might not be much different - since the satellites orbit twice per siderial day (twice every roughly 23h 56m)

davidearl: Are you sure. I can't see anything on the Mapnik layer. I *can* see something on the Osmarender layer however.

These also work in the example you link to, Ash Kyd - both on the area and way.

The tag "name" is standard for naming objects.

If you have a name which is unofficial - e.g. perhaps some of those mentioned in traffic reports on the radio - something like "loc_name" might work for a name known to locals but unofficial

Whilst it's obviously frustrating - can I suggest you change the nodes to make right angles on a local copy of the data - rather than in the database?

Actually editing the data to achieve a desired result is not generally the done thing - it's not much different from tagging for the renderer.

What happens when you use the Mkgmap software to convert it into the right format is I think some roads get merged in the pre-processing. There must be some tolerance on the angle to decide if one road carries on from another (there are many thousands of split roads where you would not want an instruction).

There has been a lot of talk about using relations to create some sort of a priority path - (but I don't think this has really taken off yet) - to clear up confusion where two ways have the same name but you must turn off to travel between them.

Yes, it is now working. Thanks for such a swift resolution.

My work is also stuck on MSIE 6

Unless I'm much mistaken, Henley Women's Regatta starts tomorrow. Probably why there are more visitors in town than usual.

I was thinking of going, but saw the poor weather forecast.

Sounds like I missed out. Weather was awful at times in North Cheshire.

I've also noticed that your junction has a set of unconnected nodes at the northernmost highway=traffic_signals node. Can I assume that these should be merged?

I guess you'd have to be blind to change it back again now! But there must be plenty of places where Yahoo is now out of date. I can think of several. In addition, I can also think of areas where GPX traces are now out of date.

Some way of removing out of date GPX points would be good. Could be tricky to implement though.

Have you uploaded your GPX trace via the "upload" tab? If not, I can't see why your trace should still be visible.

JOSM uploads the map data only

I get the same with Firefox and IE.

I even made sure I downloaded the latest version of flash - and reset - but still it says I need to install Flash

In my experience - new-ish road signs tend to leave out the apostrophes - even if older road signs include them (and perhaps the 'official' name includes them). It's not uncommon to have different spellings at either end.

If you are mapping the very northern part of the M6 - between Carlisle and Gretna - remember that this is a new piece of motorway which has been re-aligned in many places (replacing the old A74)

There was a discussion recently on the talk@ list about the "Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates" page suggesting one of the ways that editors source coordinates is from Google Maps for example - something which OSM specifically does not condone. Wikipedia has a different idea of copyright to OSM in this instance. Normally OSM takes the view that we "play safe" where possible.

Usually however, when we're doing a large-scale data import, this gets discussed on one of the talk@ lists

Have you discussed this on the list? Can we be happy that the Wikipedia data hasn't been taken from copyrighted sources?

I tend to keep the existing object, unless it's a complete mess to begin with. Adding a name to an existing object should be really easy with all of the standard editors. I don't tend to use Potlatch very much, but adding extra points in JOSM is also pretty easy usually. Splitting ways should also be straightforward in all editors.

Your data should appear shortly. The online maps don't update instantly.

Just looking at your data for that area, there are quite a lot of kinks in the track you've created - but there is more than one GPX trace - which when you average them out, might suggest that the track might not actually turn quite as much. Note that I don't know the area in question - so obviously use your judgement.

On the tracking site, the line in the HTML IE is having issues with is;
" new GitHub.Issues.Issue(2, 1.0, 0, 1240513243) "

It says, "Line 1112, Char 5, Error, 'GitHub' is undefined, Code 0"

There isn't an error report for the new OSB site, The text and various links etc on the left is there in a white band, but there rest of the screen is completely blank (and a dark gray colour)

Or rather, it would if I typed it correctly!
http://github.com/emka/openstreetbugs