Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
On 14/12/2020 19:21, Edward Bainton wrote: Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map? (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive discussion on alignment not long ago, but too technical for me to follow easily.) That "county boundary GPS traces" has been there about 10 years or so at a guess? According to OSM's GPS traces, my first mapping in Rutland was around 10 years ago and I think those boundaries were there then. I can't see that it ever added any value; it just serves to confuse people like me trying to use GPS traces to help align other imagery. I don't remember it being discussed recently, though it has cropped up before (maybe 8-10 years ago?). Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
Either a datum mix-up or different roundings used in the constants for the back-and-forth conversion. Either way that's not a real trace On 14/12/2020 19:33, Colin Smale wrote: On 2020-12-14 20:21, Edward Bainton wrote: With plenty of portages... Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map? (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive discussion on alignment not long ago, but too technical for me to follow easily.) If my suspicion is correct that a converted version of the OS Boundary-Line data was uploaded as GPX, then the small shift just indicates that the exact parameters used to convert from the OS coordinate system (Eastings and Northings) to the system used by GPS and OSM were different. ___ 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] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
On 2020-12-14 20:21, Edward Bainton wrote: > With plenty of portages... > > Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the > "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map? > (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive discussion on > alignment not long ago, but too technical for me to follow easily.) If my suspicion is correct that a converted version of the OS Boundary-Line data was uploaded as GPX, then the small shift just indicates that the exact parameters used to convert from the OS coordinate system (Eastings and Northings) to the system used by GPS and OSM were different.___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
With plenty of portages... Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map? (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive discussion on alignment not long ago, but too technical for me to follow easily.) On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 18:50, Mark Goodge wrote: > > > On 14/12/2020 17:49, Martin Wynne wrote: > > On 14/12/2020 17:27, Edward Bainton wrote: > >> Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one > >> that > >> near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough > >> (at > >> Deeping St James)? > >> > > > > Someone took their tracker with them when "Beating the Bounds"? > > In a canoe? > > Mark > > ___ > 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] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
On 14/12/2020 17:49, Martin Wynne wrote: On 14/12/2020 17:27, Edward Bainton wrote: Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at Deeping St James)? Someone took their tracker with them when "Beating the Bounds"? In a canoe? Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
On 14/12/2020 17:27, Edward Bainton wrote: Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at Deeping St James)? Someone took their tracker with them when "Beating the Bounds"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
I suspect someone has uploaded a GPX version of the boundary from OS Boundary-Line. It doesn't look like an actual trace from a GPS receiver. On 2020-12-14 18:27, Edward Bainton wrote: > Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that > near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at > Deeping St James)? > > See https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6543/-0.2655=G > > It seems unlikey that it really is a GPS trace - or is it? > > Thanks. > ___ > 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] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at Deeping St James)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6543/-0.2655=G It seems unlikey that it really is a GPS trace - or is it? Thanks. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
