On 31/12/2012 21:59, Graham Jones wrote:
I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same
reason as you. I think the main reason that there are not many in
there, is that they are very difficult to survey.
I second that! See my diary entry
My main motivation for getting involved with OSM was to get a better walking
map on my garmin. To this extent I have been adding lots of barriers in the
southern part of the Peak District. So it is being done. Whilst it is time
consuming I wouldn't say it is difficult. I do survey with a
I guess it depends on what you think is 'difficult' - to actually survey
them means a lot of walking, so I tend to only add the ones that I can
remember when I get home, and get the routes from Bing.
I have just had another look and for dry stone walls, it is quite easy to
distinguish some in
Good job there Graham. I know most of the area around there quite well. The
Bing imagery is old, it still shows the cement works which was demolished
in 2005 I think. Compare it to Google and you can see it is there no more.
Although you can't use Google Satellite view to trace there is surely no
Thanks Steven,
I am pretty sure that any reference to Google maps/imagery is not allowed
(it would be worth searching through the mail archives for last time it was
discussed).
You are right though about the age of the Bing imagery - I noticed that the
cement works is still there in the photos. I
I have been adding lots of landuse data in south east London as part of a
few projects (see recent posts tagged
http://tom.acrewoods.net/tag/openstreetmap/).
Adding farmland fields, hedges, fences and footpaths is really valuable.
The same goes for accurate landuse mapping in cities. I would
On 01/01/13 11:15, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it
isn't mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default.
+1
Smothering the countryside with landuse when it's farmland seems well
over the top to me. Marking a single field
I have been using prow:ref, just because I came across it in the mailing
lists. I have not added many (~60 prows) and I don't mind converting those
over to prow_ref if that is the consensus.
My preference would be for prow:ref, as the colon is the 'standard' way to
define namespaces, and I am not
On 1 January 2013 16:10, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
On 01/01/13 11:15, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't
mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default.
+1
Smothering the countryside with landuse when it's
Find myself more or less agreeing with the points Chris and Dudley made. I
see see farmland as a default, and haven't put any effort into mapping
farmland or fields. But I also agree with Tom's point, it is information
that has a place in the database, and you dont need to render it if you
dont
Tom Chance wrote:
Mapping it as farmland needn't distract anybody
apart from the poor sod editing the data, that is.
yours from the sticks
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Marking-landuse-and-field-boundaries-tp5742119p5742180.html
Sent from the
On 1 January 2013 18:39, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
As I said above (you must have missed it) marking fields within urban
areas is a good idea as you been doing. The contrast with the surroundings
is valuable and is not smothering thousands of square kilometres with
pointless
Tom Chance wrote:
I also cannot understand comments such as Richard's, which arise
every time somebody wants to add additional data that they consider
valuable. Compared to the days of just mapping roads, many cities
today are a dense mass of addressed buildings, metadata-to-the-
eyeballs
While I agree that high data density is an issue, I can't see why this is a
strong argument for not tagging land use in rural areas, as even if we do
draw big polygons to distinguish farmed land from woodland from moors from
scree slopes etc, these areas are so big that it doesn't make rural data
On 1 Jan 2013 20:34, Richard Fairhurst richard@systeme...
Until then, the advanced mappers must share in OSM's collective
responsibility to keep the project editable by newbies. That's why I
believe
widespread farm landuse mapping in the countryside is an actively harmful
indulgence.
On 1 January 2013 16:30, Craig Loftus craiglof...@gmail.com wrote:
1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used.
Is it wise to preclude adding more
16 matches
Mail list logo
