Re: [Talk-GB] London LOOP
I had wondered about that but I didn't know how official the section dividing was (there could be several routes guides suggesting different break points) and what copyright implications there are as the sections aren't marked on the ground. I hope it's mapped okay through Bushy Park and Crane Park, I think I did some of those bits with my mum. Greg. On 30 October 2013 11:44, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: Hey! I've recently started walking the London LOOP[1]. It's a 24 section walking tour around London which seems mostly fully mapped (yay!). However, it is mapped as one route which is rather large (245km). I wonder whether it would be a good idea to actually split it up in each of the sections and use a relation to combine them into the LOOP? Right now, it is really not possible to see where each section starts and ends. I'm more than happy to do this when I go around - and of course at the same time update the route where it has changed. cheers, Derick [1] http://derickrethans.nl/the-loop-part1.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] London LOOP
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013, Gregory wrote: On 30 October 2013 11:44, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: I've recently started walking the London LOOP[1]. It's a 24 section walking tour around London which seems mostly fully mapped (yay!). However, it is mapped as one route which is rather large (245km). I wonder whether it would be a good idea to actually split it up in each of the sections and use a relation to combine them into the LOOP? Right now, it is really not possible to see where each section starts and ends. I'm more than happy to do this when I go around - and of course at the same time update the route where it has changed. I had wondered about that but I didn't know how official the section dividing was (there could be several routes guides suggesting different break points) and what copyright implications there are as the sections aren't marked on the ground. There are signs from the stations themselves though... In any case, their route maps[1] are lines drawn over an OSM CC-BY-SA map, so I don't see a real problem with sectionifying this. [1] http://www.walklondon.org.uk/uploads/File/leaflets/loop1map_31052010152733.pdf I hope it's mapped okay through Bushy Park and Crane Park, I think I did some of those bits with my mum. I've not gotten there yet :-) cheers, Derick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Moderator Comments - Was Re: UK Food Hygiene Rating System
OK guys, time to end this thread. Not sure if I am an official moderator on this particular list, but wading in. We Brits are supposed to be ladies and gentlemen every one, so let's act like that on our own list. May I ask all concerned to take a read through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Code_of_Conduct_%28Draft%29 I'd like to emphasise a couple of things: First, robust rational debate is fine but when being critical please bend over backwards to be constructive, help not hinder and think about personal impact. The impersonal medium of email can make things appear much harsher than perhaps we really mean. Second, a broad observation in response to a matter I was contacted about off-line: we all have our personal projects that may not be so important to others but collectively have made OSM what is is over time. Please don't knock 'em. Ignore if you must, help if you can. Cheers and Happy Mapping, Mike On 29/10/2013 12:37, Dave F. wrote: The only person being rude is sk53 by attempting to hi-jack a thread with an irrelevant post on a completely different subject. His rudeness is only reinforced by his inaccurate comments which he is unwilling to justify. It's disappointing that many people within OSM like sk53 are too weak to take criticism or so arrogant as to believe they are above it (There was one user who's arrogance led him to believe he was entitled to tell users to close down their twitter accounts!). My criticisms were explained, justified on topic (to his post), not ad-hominem. Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Geological Data
The email below came through on the carto-soc mailing list today: Dear all We have several thousand U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 and 1:62,500 scale maps available to a good home. An institution is preferred but as long as the maps are not sold, requests from individuals will also be considered. Unfortunately there is no list of the maps. There are maps of every state, though there are more maps for some states than others and no state is complete. The dates vary though many are from the 1950s and 1960s. * We would prefer to send all of the maps of a particular scale (or both scales) to one institution. * The maps are in a big pile but we might be able to identify maps of particular states and just send these. It will not, however, be possible to select individual sheets. * The maps are free but delivery costs will probably need to be met by the receiving institution/person. Looking forward to hearing from you! Many thanks Anne -- Anne Taylor Head of Map Department, Cambridge University Library, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR Tel: 01223-333041. Fax: 01223-333160. email: ae...@cam.ac.uk http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/deptserv/maps/ !!VAT NUMBER: G.B. 823 8476 09!! From: Michael Collinson [mailto:mj.collin...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 October 2013 16:10 To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Geological Data It is an area that interests me too, explicitly surface expression of geology, (outcrops and faults mostly) and geomorphology (interesting drumlins, meander loops, landslips, ...). My personal conclusion is that by all means do low-key experimentation but that any systematic mapping is better off for all in a separate but compatible database a la Open Historical Map ... and a lot easy to implement than the historic map. Like Jerry I still have all my old field books and hand-drawn OS ?1:5000 overlays. Do students still do it like that? If so, one thing that intrigues me as a project is to set up a system whereby students could map digitally into an OSM-friendly system so that progressively all those little squares build up a comprehensive outcrop map of all the UK. There is probably all sorts of small stuff here and there buried in student assignments that was missed by the pros. Collated together it might also provide a seriously useful academic resource. I already map historic mining activity in northern Yorkshire and Co. Durham directly into OSM as it is something that can be systematically migrated to another resource when the time comes. Motivated by Jonathan's posting, I have just done a knowledge dump [1] . I would greatly welcome other joining me elsewhere the country. I map from NPE, OS25K, Bing imagery and local knowledge. Bing imagery is fascinating in moorland areas. See [2] for example of a place I have stayed at several times completely unaware that the close proximity is riddled with old, probably lead, mine shafts. Mike [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Historic_Mini ng_Activity [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/54.15584/-2.01688 Buckden, Wharfedale example of mine shaft identification using Bing imagery. On 11/10/2013 00:25, SK53 wrote: I had a very brief chat with someone at SotM touching on this. I don't think the 1inch:10 mile data is at all useful in OSM: it's too generalised and would result in huge awkward to maintain polygons. However in many places the field geology is much more detailed and is both at a scale compatible with OSM and there is potential for adding lots of detail. This is particularly true in the Classic Areas: Matlock, Arran, Craven etc. I'm sure I'm not alone in having some old field notebooks (including laboriously drawn maps traced from OS Geological Survey) with masses of such detail. Probably the place to start is in finding a way to map classic exposures (many will be protected as SSSIs). I know I've added a small cliff (quarry) face which is the southernmost exposure of Magnesian Limestone, but I don't know if I added any geology related tags at the time. Faults may be another feature suitable for mapping in the short term: in the coal measures many of these will be adequately mapped on out-of-copyright geology maps (I would think virtually all the 1 inch maps ought to be OOC by now). A related topic is old mines quarries. There is a substantial literature community interested in the industrial archaeology of mining. In many places the impact on the landscape artefacts are still (all too) present. Adding information about the geology alongside the archaeology would make mapping much more informative (see things like the Manganese mines of Merionethshire http://www.davel.f2s.com/hendrecoed/Merioneth-Manganese/ or Dolaucothi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolaucothi_Gold_Mines ). There are also aspects of geology (and possibly soils) which are of interest to naturalists. Apart from broad things like lime-rich soils, one often
Re: [Talk-GB] Geological Data
You can ignore this actually. The maps are plain topo maps, not geological. Ive copied to historic though in case of interest. Cheers Andy From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] Sent: 31 October 2013 15:20 To: m...@ayeltd.biz; 'Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org' Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Geological Data The email below came through on the carto-soc mailing list today: Dear all We have several thousand U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 and 1:62,500 scale maps available to a good home. An institution is preferred but as long as the maps are not sold, requests from individuals will also be considered. Unfortunately there is no list of the maps. There are maps of every state, though there are more maps for some states than others and no state is complete. The dates vary though many are from the 1950s and 1960s. * We would prefer to send all of the maps of a particular scale (or both scales) to one institution. * The maps are in a big pile but we might be able to identify maps of particular states and just send these. It will not, however, be possible to select individual sheets. * The maps are free but delivery costs will probably need to be met by the receiving institution/person. Looking forward to hearing from you! Many thanks Anne -- Anne Taylor Head of Map Department, Cambridge University Library, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR Tel: 01223-333041. Fax: 01223-333160. email: ae...@cam.ac.uk http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/deptserv/maps/ !!VAT NUMBER: G.B. 823 8476 09!! From: Michael Collinson [mailto:mj.collin...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 October 2013 16:10 To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Geological Data It is an area that interests me too, explicitly surface expression of geology, (outcrops and faults mostly) and geomorphology (interesting drumlins, meander loops, landslips, ...). My personal conclusion is that by all means do low-key experimentation but that any systematic mapping is better off for all in a separate but compatible database a la Open Historical Map ... and a lot easy to implement than the historic map. Like Jerry I still have all my old field books and hand-drawn OS ?1:5000 overlays. Do students still do it like that? If so, one thing that intrigues me as a project is to set up a system whereby students could map digitally into an OSM-friendly system so that progressively all those little squares build up a comprehensive outcrop map of all the UK. There is probably all sorts of small stuff here and there buried in student assignments that was missed by the pros. Collated together it might also provide a seriously useful academic resource. I already map historic mining activity in northern Yorkshire and Co. Durham directly into OSM as it is something that can be systematically migrated to another resource when the time comes. Motivated by Jonathan's posting, I have just done a knowledge dump [1] . I would greatly welcome other joining me elsewhere the country. I map from NPE, OS25K, Bing imagery and local knowledge. Bing imagery is fascinating in moorland areas. See [2] for example of a place I have stayed at several times completely unaware that the close proximity is riddled with old, probably lead, mine shafts. Mike [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Historic_Mini ng_Activity [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/54.15584/-2.01688 Buckden, Wharfedale example of mine shaft identification using Bing imagery. On 11/10/2013 00:25, SK53 wrote: I had a very brief chat with someone at SotM touching on this. I don't think the 1inch:10 mile data is at all useful in OSM: it's too generalised and would result in huge awkward to maintain polygons. However in many places the field geology is much more detailed and is both at a scale compatible with OSM and there is potential for adding lots of detail. This is particularly true in the Classic Areas: Matlock, Arran, Craven etc. I'm sure I'm not alone in having some old field notebooks (including laboriously drawn maps traced from OS Geological Survey) with masses of such detail. Probably the place to start is in finding a way to map classic exposures (many will be protected as SSSIs). I know I've added a small cliff (quarry) face which is the southernmost exposure of Magnesian Limestone, but I don't know if I added any geology related tags at the time. Faults may be another feature suitable for mapping in the short term: in the coal measures many of these will be adequately mapped on out-of-copyright geology maps (I would think virtually all the 1 inch maps ought to be OOC by now). A related topic is old mines quarries. There is a substantial literature community interested in the industrial archaeology of mining. In many places the impact on the landscape artefacts are still (all too) present. Adding information about the geology alongside the archaeology would make mapping much more informative (see things like the
