On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 08:09:49PM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260
It's rather ironic that that node carries the
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:24:31PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:24:31PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260
On 15 September 2013 11:27, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
It is a few years since I looked at any of this, but it had not occurred
to me that any copyright issue could arise. They are essentially modern
trig points. There is a mark on the ground, and their website publishes
the
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:24:31PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260
On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260
On 10 September 2013 10:09, o...@k3v.eu wrote:
This has been discussed on the list before. Bing image alignment can be
quite poor
One unfortunate consequence of this is that there are areas of the map
where the majority of features are out of position by 15 or more feet,
because people have
Which is the higher priority, consistency or accuracy? Is it better to
have an internally consistent map, where everything is topologically
correct but possibly a little displaced by a uniform vector, or is it
better to have some of the objects positioned with high accuracy,
despite the apparent
Why do you suppose OS Streetview is correct? I find that compared to multiple
GPS tracks it is not always well aligned and more recent Bing imagery is often
better.
OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2013 10:09, o...@k3v.eu wrote:
This has been discussed on the list
On 13 September 2013 12:31, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Which is the higher priority, consistency or accuracy? Is it better to have
an internally consistent map, where everything is topologically correct but
possibly a little displaced by a uniform vector, or is it better to have
OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
A couple of days ago, I walked a footpath, which turned out, along
with the preceding private road, to be a PROW on foot. As I wanted to
detail map it to show steps, I first calibrated Bing against OS
StreetView
When using any OS data it's important to be certain of
On 13 September 2013 12:55, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
Why do you suppose OS Streetview is correct? I find that compared to multiple
GPS tracks it is not always well aligned and more recent Bing imagery is
often better.
I did consider that possibility, but I did a search for that
Cm-level GPS accuracy is coming within our grasp... My attention was
recently drawn to this:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/swiftnav/piksi-the-rtk-gps-receiver
[2]
On 2013-09-13 15:06, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
I don't think I would trust commercial GPS much below 5m unless it was
On 13/09/13 14:28, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
How does one find that out for the tiles served by
os.openstreetmap.org, and if they are not using the high accuracy
conversions, why not? (OS' own online viewer also uses WGS84
coordinates to label their tiles - suggesting that they should be
using
AFAIK all OS StreetView tiles on OSM are projected in Spherical Mercator
and this reprojection will certainly have been done using proj4, i.e, it's
algorithmic not table-driven.
OSSV scale is 1 pixel / metre, so accuracy is less than that.
So sources of error are:
- Feature generalisation in
On 13 September 2013 14:46, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 13/09/13 14:28, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
How does one find that out for the tiles served by
os.openstreetmap.org, and if they are not using the high accuracy
conversions, why not? (OS' own online viewer also uses WGS84
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:29:24 +0100, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
wrote:
One reason for this is parallax error, because the images aren't
taken square on to the ground (that may be because the camera is
taking in quite a large area. You can see this with building, you
can end up with a
On 9 September 2013 20:05, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I'm currently playing in an area where the highest resolution imagery is
still an older view, while as I zoom out we step to newer imagery which is
some distance off from the map tracks. I'm fairly happy with the map as I
have
18 matches
Mail list logo
