Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
On 12/12/2016 09:42, Stuart Reynolds wrote: sand is shown all the way out to the end of the pier A practical solution to tidal beach areas is to map them as two areas with a common bound, that being the MHW nominal coastline. The areas above MHW can optionally carry the tag "tidal=no", but the areas below MHW should carry the tag "tidal=yes" and extend down to MLW(or MLWS or LAT). This is important for coastal walkers, who need to know what parts of an inviting beach may not be there on their return! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
Hi Jason, Hmm, I see what you mean around Looe, it does look a bit suspicious. I am going to poke around in the OS OpenMap Local data to see if that data is better. I can see there are "Tidal Boundary", "Tidal Water" and "Foreshore" shapefiles included which might be useful. //colin On 2016-12-12 08:40, Jason Woollacott wrote: > Colin, > > I've been doing some coastline updates around the South West, and have been > basing my coastline on the OS_StreetView map layer which also shows MHW. > however the GPX file does not seem to match this. In Cornwall, which has a > very jagged coast, you can never rely on Bing as the angles are quite often > wrong, but on flatter ground, say around, Looe, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.35216/-4.44840 > > The GPX around the pier goes well into the sea (about 6m), compared to the OS > SV layer which links fairly close to the bing image at that point. > > Agreed that the coastline extract is much better than the PGS, which is a > still straight lines in some places. however, one other area that the GPX > extract doesn't seem to cover is the islet and rocks which are above sea > level even at high water level. (See the Looe link again) > > Jason (Unieagle) > > - > > FROM: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> > SENT: 12 December 2016 00:51 > TO: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > SUBJECT: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS > > Colin > > I was more talking about the actual shape of the MHW rather than its > position; if that makes sense. > > some examples of problems in the Isle of Wight > > 1) There's a section here > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.66636/-1.48566, where the Bing > imagery seems reasonably aligned to the gps tracks of the main road, but the > gpx file for MHW seems to be too far to the north on the cliff area, and too > far to the south on the area to the east. this beach shelves relatively > steeply so there is unlikely to be much difference between MHWS & MHWN > > 2) Even clearer is an area > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.69439/-1.09414, OSM is much more > accurate here than the OS Boundary Line > > 3) The car park and ice rink here > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.73237/-1.15736 were built sometime > around 1990, but Boundary line MHW would show these as flooded > > 4) More inaccuracies here > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.76650/-1.30029 > > David > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Sent: 11/12/2016 22:17:44 > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS > > Hi David, > > Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like MHW > should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is however > possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at the highest > tides, so it might also be possible that it is strictly correct. > > The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the state of > the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be misleading. > Even a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is apparently calculated > over a 19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this though) and things could change > a lot in that time. As MHW is an average, many tides will of course be > higher. > > The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where > combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many anomalies > (admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would definitely suggest > applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of issue. But I agree, use of > the OS data would need case-by-case judgements. However I still think the OS > data is probably a better base to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons > I mentioned earlier. > > Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW? > > //colin > > [1] > https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > > > On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote: > I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" is > has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, but the > subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag. > > Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the coastline > currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx file does not > accurately represent MHW. > > I certainly would not want to
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
Colin, I've been doing some coastline updates around the South West, and have been basing my coastline on the OS_StreetView map layer which also shows MHW. however the GPX file does not seem to match this. In Cornwall, which has a very jagged coast, you can never rely on Bing as the angles are quite often wrong, but on flatter ground, say around, Looe, https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.35216/-4.44840 The GPX around the pier goes well into the sea (about 6m), compared to the OS SV layer which links fairly close to the bing image at that point. Agreed that the coastline extract is much better than the PGS, which is a still straight lines in some places. however, one other area that the GPX extract doesn't seem to cover is the islet and rocks which are above sea level even at high water level. (See the Looe link again) Jason (Unieagle) From: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> Sent: 12 December 2016 00:51 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS Colin I was more talking about the actual shape of the MHW rather than its position; if that makes sense. some examples of problems in the Isle of Wight 1) There's a section here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.66636/-1.48566, where the Bing imagery seems reasonably aligned to the gps tracks of the main road, but the gpx file for MHW seems to be too far to the north on the cliff area, and too far to the south on the area to the east. this beach shelves relatively steeply so there is unlikely to be much difference between MHWS & MHWN 2) Even clearer is an area http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.69439/-1.09414, OSM is much more accurate here than the OS Boundary Line 3) The car park and ice rink here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.73237/-1.15736 were built sometime around 1990, but Boundary line MHW would show these as flooded 4) More inaccuracies here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.76650/-1.30029 David -- Original Message -- From: "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl<mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> Sent: 11/12/2016 22:17:44 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS Hi David, Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like MHW should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is however possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at the highest tides, so it might also be possible that it is strictly correct. The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the state of the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be misleading. Even a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is apparently calculated over a 19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this though) and things could change a lot in that time. As MHW is an average, many tides will of course be higher. The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many anomalies (admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would definitely suggest applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of issue. But I agree, use of the OS data would need case-by-case judgements. However I still think the OS data is probably a better base to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons I mentioned earlier. Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW? //colin [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote: I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" is has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, but the subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag. Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the coastline currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx file does not accurately represent MHW. I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is in currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data. Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an area near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary Line data seems to be an odd representation of the coastline. David On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote: Hi, Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of the Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be significantly better than the PGS data: * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be from 2006) * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never a
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
Colin I was more talking about the actual shape of the MHW rather than its position; if that makes sense. some examples of problems in the Isle of Wight 1) There's a section here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.66636/-1.48566, where the Bing imagery seems reasonably aligned to the gps tracks of the main road, but the gpx file for MHW seems to be too far to the north on the cliff area, and too far to the south on the area to the east. this beach shelves relatively steeply so there is unlikely to be much difference between MHWS & MHWN 2) Even clearer is an area http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.69439/-1.09414, OSM is much more accurate here than the OS Boundary Line 3) The car park and ice rink here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.73237/-1.15736 were built sometime around 1990, but Boundary line MHW would show these as flooded 4) More inaccuracies here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.76650/-1.30029 David -- Original Message -- From: "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: 11/12/2016 22:17:44 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS Hi David, Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like MHW should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is however possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at the highest tides, so it might also be possible that it is strictly correct. The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the state of the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be misleading. Even a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is apparently calculated over a 19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this though) and things could change a lot in that time. As MHW is an average, many tides will of course be higher. The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many anomalies (admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would definitely suggest applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of issue. But I agree, use of the OS data would need case-by-case judgements. However I still think the OS data is probably a better base to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons I mentioned earlier. Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW? //colin [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote: I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" is has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, but the subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag. Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the coastline currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx file does not accurately represent MHW. I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is in currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data. Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an area near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary Line data seems to be an odd representation of the coastline. David On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote: Hi, Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of the Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be significantly better than the PGS data: * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be from 2006) * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall) There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data: * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary at MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the correct baseline * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level. Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops and you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file per county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the higher-level regions or the lower-level constituency areas). In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I have replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks much better (in Potlatch) although the changes
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
This discusses the accuracy of the MHW/MLW data http://eprints.hrwallingford.co.uk/554/1/HRPP523_Error_analysis_of_Ordnance_Survey_map_tidelines.pdf //colin On 2016-12-11 23:17, Colin Smale wrote: > Hi David, > > Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like MHW > should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is however > possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at the highest > tides, so it might also be possible that it is strictly correct. > > The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the state of > the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be misleading. > Even a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is apparently calculated > over a 19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this though) and things could change > a lot in that time. As MHW is an average, many tides will of course be > higher. > > The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where > combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many anomalies > (admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would definitely suggest > applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of issue. But I agree, use of > the OS data would need case-by-case judgements. However I still think the OS > data is probably a better base to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons > I mentioned earlier. > > Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW? > > //colin > > [1] > https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > > > On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote: > I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" is > has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, but the > subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag. > > Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the coastline > currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx file does not > accurately represent MHW. > > I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is in > currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data. > > Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an area > near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary Line data > seems to be an odd representation of the coastline. > > David > On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote: > Hi, > > Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of the > Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be > significantly better than the PGS data: > > * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old > the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be > from 2006) > * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves > * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above > MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall) > > There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data: > > * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary at > MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data > * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is > correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we > need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the > correct baseline > * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level. > Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops and > you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line > > I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to > http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file per > county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the higher-level > regions or the lower-level constituency areas). > > In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I have > replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks much better (in > Potlatch) although the changes are not yet showing through on "the map". I > think coastline changes are processed less frequently. > > Any comments? > > //colin > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
Hi David, Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like MHW should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is however possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at the highest tides, so it might also be possible that it is strictly correct. The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the state of the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be misleading. Even a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is apparently calculated over a 19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this though) and things could change a lot in that time. As MHW is an average, many tides will of course be higher. The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many anomalies (admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would definitely suggest applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of issue. But I agree, use of the OS data would need case-by-case judgements. However I still think the OS data is probably a better base to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons I mentioned earlier. Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW? //colin [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote: > I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" is > has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, but the > subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag. > > Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the coastline > currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx file does not > accurately represent MHW. > > I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is in > currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data. > > Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an area > near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary Line data > seems to be an odd representation of the coastline. > > David > On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of the >> Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be >> significantly better than the PGS data: >> >> * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old >> the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be >> from 2006) >> * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves >> * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above >> MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall) >> >> There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data: >> >> * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary at >> MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data >> * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is >> correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we >> need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the >> correct baseline >> * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level. >> Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops and >> you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line >> >> I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to >> http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file per >> county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the higher-level >> regions or the lower-level constituency areas). >> >> In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I have >> replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks much better >> (in Potlatch) although the changes are not yet showing through on "the map". >> I think coastline changes are processed less frequently. >> >> Any comments? >> >> //colin > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" is has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, but the subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag. Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the coastline currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx file does not accurately represent MHW. I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is in currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data. Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an area near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary Line data seems to be an odd representation of the coastline. David On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote: Hi, Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of the Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be significantly better than the PGS data: * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be from 2006) * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall) There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data: * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary at MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the correct baseline * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level. Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops and you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file per county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the higher-level regions or the lower-level constituency areas). In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I have replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks much better (in Potlatch) although the changes are not yet showing through on "the map". I think coastline changes are processed less frequently. Any comments? //colin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
Hi, Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of the Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be significantly better than the PGS data: * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be from 2006) * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall) There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data: * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary at MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the correct baseline * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level. Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops and you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file per county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the higher-level regions or the lower-level constituency areas). In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I have replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks much better (in Potlatch) although the changes are not yet showing through on "the map". I think coastline changes are processed less frequently. Any comments? //colin___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
