[Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project
Hi, Was just thinking whether it would be worth us (as in OSM UK) resurrecting the 'missing paths for 2026' project? A quick reminder - we have until 2026 to record historical rights of way which have fallen out of use in recent times, and the combination of OSM, council data and historical map layers (which I have been granted access to by NLS for MapThePaths) would be a good way to identify possible missing paths. I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex' effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on the historical maps which do not correspond either to current council RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus would be candidates for investigation to see if the path is in a usable state or there is evidence of use. http://mapthepaths.org.uk/?mode=1 Obviously it's perhaps not the best time of year to launch an outdoor project - but the next few months would be a good time to develop the project ready for use in the spring. Anyone keen to work on this? Gitlab: https://gitlab.com/nickw1/mapthepaths/ Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings
30 Sep 2019, 12:55 by ajt1...@gmail.com: > one of the complaints - perhaps because it's an "easy to find"problem > - is unsquared (or unrounded) buildings > Common issue was that traced geometry was sometimes utterly unrelated to geometry of object on the ground. Unsquared check is probably attempt to detect this kind of situation. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings
On 30/09/2019 11:47, SK53 wrote: I imagine for accurately surveyed & designed buildings JOSM's algorithm is likely to introduce additional errors because the architects/engineers will have used British Grid. Squaring to the grid is something you could only reasonably do for buildings oriented to one of North, South, East or West. Given that, if spherical geometry has a significant effect, you are going to have to do more complex calculations, I imagine things will be done in the way that is easiest to implement with theodolites, etc., not one that produced round grid references. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings
On 30/09/19 20:55, Andy Townsend wrote: On 30/09/2019 11:15, Jez Nicholson wrote: Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'? A possible (slightly contentious) view might be that: * some people have been complaining about the quality of HOT additions - sometimes unfounded, because it's more a "new user" thing than a "HOT" thing per se. * one of the complaints - perhaps because it's an "easy to find" problem - is unsquared (or unrounded) buildings * HOT therefore make a big deal about squaring buildings I've never been hugely bothered by it personally - people can easily square them up later if that's appropriate. My 1970s home is not that square, very annoying doing home renovations. On the other hand the 1910 terrace house is dead square! (It is just the council there that is stupidly irregular.) HOT can train there new mappers better... people who join OSM from the crowd are without that benefit. Does it matter? It does make the map 'look' better, giving more confidence to the end user thus improving OSMs reputation so .. to me .. yes it matters. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings
On 30/09/2019 11:15, Jez Nicholson wrote: Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'? A possible (slightly contentious) view might be that: * some people have been complaining about the quality of HOT additions - sometimes unfounded, because it's more a "new user" thing than a "HOT" thing per se. * one of the complaints - perhaps because it's an "easy to find" problem - is unsquared (or unrounded) buildings * HOT therefore make a big deal about squaring buildings I've never been hugely bothered by it personally - people can easily square them up later if that's appropriate. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings
I'm sure that in one of the SotM talks someone mentioned that there are no right-angled buildings in New York City (or at least downtown Manhattan). I'll see if I can find the relevant talk. The general issue is really one of poorly mapped buildings, for which non-squaring is just a proxy measure. Pierre Beland's talk on the first day was about finding such areas (especially wrt HOT mapping). Some years ago whilst helping Ralph (another person I didn't get to talk to at SotM, Hi1) do validation at one of the London Missing Maps events I noticed a quirky thing. If you square a building in JOSM and then resquare it in iD or Potlatch the nodes move slightly. Apparently the reason is that JOSM squares based on a geoid whilst the other two editors just work on the principle that the editor viewpoint is small enough that one can use 'naive' geometry operations. I imagine for accurately surveyed & designed buildings JOSM's algorithm is likely to introduce additional errors because the architects/engineers will have used British Grid. Jerry On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 11:17, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan > anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'? > > - Jez > ___ > 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] non-squared buildings
Most buildings have square edges*. I know, i know! Some dont, but most do. In many areas, the buildings were built to the same size and shape, so if they’re squared, they’re easily replicated, especially looking how dense new housing estates are. Detached house but so close together you cannot pull your wheelie bin through the gap between the back garden and driveway. It’s also pleasing to the eye. It’s not so much accuracy as tidiness. Look at grids networks the world over. * older buildings or repurposed buildings are often not so square, but people sure do like it as a shape over a triangular floorprint, no? Gareth From: Philip Barnes Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:26:15 AM To: jez.nichol...@gmail.com Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings On Monday, 30 September 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan > anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'? Was thinking about squared buildings whilst in my local high street a while back. There wasn't one in sight. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ 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] non-squared buildings
On Monday, 30 September 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan > anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'? Was thinking about squared buildings whilst in my local high street a while back. There wasn't one in sight. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] non-squared buildings
Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'? - Jez ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
