Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Separation of sources
Martin - CycleStreets wrote: I agree in an ideal world, ground-surveys done from first principles will be preferable. But the fact is that there remain areas of the country that routing. Wolverhampton and Newcastle for instance are places which we certainly would love to see become usable for routing as early as possible. Wolverhampton and the rest of the Black Country is on the west midlands mappers hit list. Currently I'm working on completing Walsall district and others are working to the south and east of Wolverhampton. There is a good chance we will wrap up these areas this year but revisiting patchy Wolverhampton may take longer. These heavy urban are areas have to be surveyed on the ground because there is so much detail to add that is not available from any other source. At full detail each 1 sq km of the urban area takes me somewhere around 4 hours to map on the ground and edit into the database and there are a lot of squares still to do. While it may be a quick win to drop the basic road network in from the latest OS release that's not really creating a great OSM map and of course it can't tell you which roads are one way etc etc so there will always been navigation issues for road users, cyclists or otherwise, until we can get the ground survey done. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Cyclestreets request
On twitter the excellent Cyclestreets ask: @mappamercia Nice site by the way! Any chance of adding http://birmingham.cyclestreets.net/ to your 'Use the map'; page? Seems a good idea. Can we? BTW they are using Code-Point Open. Blog http://www.cyclestreets.net/blog/2010/04/05/ordnance-survey-data-freed-partially/ Cyclestreets http://www.cyclestreets.net/ Andrew ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Separation of sources
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:35:42AM +0100, Martin - CycleStreets wrote: I'm not sure I quite understand the objection to tracing over other data that OSM can legally and ethically use (though can appreciate David Earl's point of view). There is no objection to tracing over other data, but an objection at doing it at the expense of ground surveyed data. The fact is that this OS data is our data which mostly we as taxpayers have paid for already. Why shouldn't we make use of it and incorporate it as the basis of a road network that can then be incrementally improved, adjusted and built upon, more quickly (unless it is not 'good enough' from an accuracy perspective)? Of course we should use the data available to us. I don’t think it is necessary to bung it all directly into the same project. If all of the different data sources are readily available online, a “combined” project could use them, and improve on them. Another project might prefer to combine them differently. I agree in an ideal world, ground-surveys done from first principles will be preferable. But the fact is that there remain areas of the country that routing. Given a selection of sources, it is up to the data users to combine them in a way that works for them. If a project needs the basic road network, there’s nothing stopping it using GPS + OS + traced aerial imagery + whatever, and combining them in a way it sees fit (well, short of the effort in doing this that I may underestimate). volunteer-encouragement perspective. So wouldn't the pragmatic way forward be to patch in / trace over data in incomplete areas, so that it forms the basic network? Again, I don’t see how separating out the sources stops this from working in a combined project. Maybe OSM now is the “combined” project, I’d just like to see something where ground surveyed data is the ultimate, and it’s not clear to me that it is the ultimate now. If people want other sources so much, won’t they encourage the effort to combine the independent sources? I think that surely underestimates the effort required. Processing one massive dataset is bad enough, never mind having to do this for several sources and find ways to deal with merging/clashing. Oh, I expect it would be extra effort. You snipped the bit where I said that. I asked “is it really that bad?” I’m very much not a data user at the moment, so I have very little experience, so do tell me more. :) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 17:25 +0100, Jonathan Bennett wrote: If someone who is completely new to OSM sees the streets in their area complete, they may assume the map is complete and there's nothing for them to do. As a lurker, and someone that would be keen to contribute, can I suggest somewhere where effort would be useful - A simple mechanism to attach attributes to streets. Perhaps a web interface with those incomplete streets highlighted. This would be low hanging fruit to a local, with a low barrier to entry. Such a mechanism would separate nicely the problem of street entry and the problem of street tagging. So far, my attempts to contribute have been stifled because of my low attention span and need to spend time doing other things. My perception is that its not trivial to begin to contribute. Can I spend 10 minutes here and there naming streets? Cheers, Henry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Separation of sources
Martin - CycleStreets wrote: I agree in an ideal world, ground-surveys done from first principles will be preferable. But the fact is that there remain areas of the country that routing. Wolverhampton and Newcastle for instance are places which we certainly would love to see become usable for routing as early as possible. Wolverhampton and the rest of the Black Country is on the west midlands mappers hit list. Currently I'm working on completing Walsall district and others are working to the south and east of Wolverhampton. There is a good chance we will wrap up these areas this year but revisiting patchy Wolverhampton may take longer. These heavy urban are areas have to be surveyed on the ground because there is so much detail to add that is not available from any other source. At full detail each 1 sq km of the urban area takes me somewhere around 4 hours to map on the ground and edit into the database and there are a lot of squares still to do. While it may be a quick win to drop the basic road network in from the latest OS release that's not really creating a great OSM map and of course it can't tell you which roads are one way etc etc so there will always been navigation issues for road users, cyclists or otherwise, until we can get the ground survey done. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm in line with this view too. We cannot assume that the OS mapping is correct, it may or may not be current or accurate, so it's useful as a guide in the absence of any other verification source. Streetview as a product is still a long way short of the level of detail we are routinely creating ourselves. The VetorMap District product that is being released next month won't add that much either, yes we can map landuse areas a bit better if there is no other source. We also noted that residential streets are not named in VMD so like Y! imagery there is little point in importing for unmapped areas unless someone is prepared to add the street names from ground survey, or (second best) from OS Streetview, which may or may not be accurate in terms of what is on the ground. Please don't be fooled, the OS may be a great organisation and produces great mapping that we have in the past relied upon for so many uses, but our map is a pretty damn good product too and once verified in an particular area is probably always going to be up to date and richer than any OS OpenData product. Yeah, it's not the accuracy of the OS data that I'm particularly worried about -- it's the accuracy of the tracing that gets done from it. From the looks of it the best data available will be the streetview rasters, and they're missing all kinds of stuff such as one ways, connectivity (mostly over connected), some smaller roads (they probably get classed as driveways), a lot of names, and of course footpaths, POIs, routes etc. But, if you're familiar with an area then I don't see a problem. In that case it's no worse than doing an initial street only survey. Creating a broken map is a very bad idea, but a merely incomplete one is just a fact of life we have to deal with. Or put another way: the data is freely there, it will get traced whether we like it or not, we might as well encourage it to be done in the right way. Dave ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
Hi again, Thanks for the feedback on building traces. The consensus seems to be for a JOSM plugin while others saying all surveying should be done on the ground. Surveys are only practical where there is permissive or public access to buildings, but the majority of buildings are inaccessible to the public. Therefore, we need a source besides us doing the survey, assuming we want building outlines at all. I think building outlines would be useful for navigation, planning, analysis and many other uses of the map data. In response to the comment no imports ever, I would point out that building imports is a completely different situation than that of public roads. A glance at OS Street View suggests that about 99% of buildings are not publically accessible. If we use only manual surveying, we can only achieve coverage of about 1%. I don't think that is satisfactory. Imports are therefore very much appropriate for buildings. The point that buildings may need local knowledge for a high quality import is a better point against a mass import. But again, local knowledge only really applies to the minority of buildings that are accessible. The vast majority of the data can't be improved by local knowledge. I suggest the minority of buildings that can be improved can be done once they have been imported into the OSM database. Regarding the technical difficulty, it remains to be seen if automatic tracing is possible and of sufficient quality. But it is presumptuous to assume it is impossible at this stage. I observed there are slight artifacts in the rectified tiles with are not present in the original set (link below). Notice the a in stag is distorted and also some of the letters in Court. An attempt to automatically trace those tiles would end up with noticeable glitches. Until that stuff gets ironed out, a JOSM plugin, which would presumably grab these tiles via WMS, would have poor automatic tracing performance. http://grant.dev.openstreetmap.org/os-streetview-tiles/17/65322/43740.png Also the rectified tiles seem to be not the highest zoom level available? Having the highest resolution makes automatic tracing much more accurate. There are various service roads that are on the OS opendata site (search for SU986502) that are not in the rectified tiles: http://grant.dev.openstreetmap.org/os-streetview-tiles/17/65322/43739.png One option is to automatically trace objects from the original images and then transform the polygons into WGS84. The main thing I am missing is an practical (and open) OSTN02 implementation (in python). I will investigate this and perhaps trial it in my local area. One question, is this data set going to be maintained by OS in the future? And don't worry, I won't be doing a mass import without a great deal of work and discussion. TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Hi Henry As a lurker, and someone that would be keen to contribute, can I suggest somewhere where effort would be useful - A simple mechanism to attach attributes to streets. Perhaps a web interface with those incomplete streets highlighted. This would be low hanging fruit to a local, with a low barrier to entry. Such a mechanism would separate nicely the problem of street entry and the problem of street tagging. You can use the noname layer to view unnamed streets (+ sign on main map and then select). If you want to highlight them in the editor (Potlatch), go to options (the tick-in-a-box icon), tick Highlight unnamed roads and click OK. They will then be highlighted with red borders. Click on one and hit the N key to add the name. (You should really also add the source - +, type source, hit return then text for your source - e.g., local_knowledge). David (davespod) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
On 6 April 2010 12:46, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi again, Thanks for the feedback on building traces. The consensus seems to be for a JOSM plugin while others saying all surveying should be done on the ground. Personally, I'd be happy to see a JOSM plugin similar to the Lakewalker plugin: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lakewalker For those not familiar with it, you activate it, then click on a lake or similar. The plugin creates a way around the lake, which can then be manually checked/corrected before the edits are uploaded to OSM. Russ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: In response to the comment no imports ever, I would point out that building imports is a completely different situation than that of public roads. A glance at OS Street View suggests that about 99% of buildings are not publically accessible. If we use only manual surveying, we can only achieve coverage of about 1%. I don't think that is satisfactory. Imports are therefore very much appropriate for buildings. You're missing the point on several levels. For buildings it's quite possible to trace the outlines from aerial imagery, where we have it. And in some parts of the country, we have better imagery than the building outlines shown on Street View - yahoo, and soon the Surrey imagery, for starters. So it's not a case of Street View or nothing. I hope you have seen the vast tracts of London that have building outlines in OSM already - all of much higher detail than Street View? None of this depends on whether the building is publicly accessible. Also, you are confusing the use of multiple sources for editing (GPS, aerial, maps), with that of importing. Imports is an orthogonal discussion to that of whether the building outlines in Street View are useful. Please don't confuse the two issues. If you are not talking about bulk imports then please don't call your ideas imports, otherwise you confuse people as to your intentions. There are people who are supportive of imagery recognition to help editors, who are strongly opposed to bulk imports. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: I'd say about 95% of buildings are rectangles. About 99% of buildings are purely orthogonal lines. We need to be careful about extracting shapes from products that are known to be downsampled. A quick look at Street View in my area shows that OSM has more detail in the building outlines than Street View, suggesting to me that MasterMap outlines have been simplified (often to rectangles) to make this particular product. We need to realise that whilst we map to a high level of detail and keep those details in our end products, the OS don't and often have simplified outputs. So it's a false assumption that the buildings in Street View are accurate or better than OSM can create by other means. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] tracing lakes with Potlatch
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 17:26 +0100, Jason Cunningham wrote: The detail for water is excellent and may be the most 'detailed' vector data OS is going to provide. It's far better than the OSM community could achieve with GPSr's and aerial image tracing. Do you know how OS do the water detail? I've often wondered how they manage to get such good detail of really tiny streams in the middle of nowhere, often obscured by trees. Looking at the second link, there are islands in the stream that are marked on the map, but simply not visible on the aerial imagery. I suspect ground imaging radar would highlight water, but surely this has similar tree obscuring issues. cheers, Henry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] tracing lakes with Potlatch
Henry Gomersall wrote: Sent: 06 April 2010 5:39 PM To: Jason Cunningham Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tracing lakes with Potlatch On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 17:26 +0100, Jason Cunningham wrote: The detail for water is excellent and may be the most 'detailed' vector data OS is going to provide. It's far better than the OSM community could achieve with GPSr's and aerial image tracing. Do you know how OS do the water detail? I've often wondered how they manage to get such good detail of really tiny streams in the middle of nowhere, often obscured by trees. They do have about 200 years head start ;-) A lot of stuff nowadays is done from aerial imagery, but they can still drop back to traditional surveying methods if required. Cheers Andy Looking at the second link, there are islands in the stream that are marked on the map, but simply not visible on the aerial imagery. I suspect ground imaging radar would highlight water, but surely this has similar tree obscuring issues. cheers, Henry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2793 - Release Date: 04/05/10 19:32:00 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] tracing lakes with Potlatch
On 06/04/2010 17:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: A lot of stuff nowadays is done from aerial imagery, but they can still drop back to traditional surveying methods if required. It was a strange coincidence that I met an OS surveyor, theodolite in hand, doing just that when I was out surveying the (*still* unopened) new Guided Busway near Cambridge, and for the same reason. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: If we use only manual surveying, we can only achieve coverage of about 1%. I don't think that is satisfactory. Imports are therefore very much appropriate for buildings. You're missing the point on several levels. For buildings it's quite possible to trace the outlines from aerial imagery, where we have it. And in some parts of the country, we have better imagery than the building outlines shown on Street View - yahoo, and soon the Surrey imagery, for starters. So it's not a case of Street View or nothing. I hope you have seen the vast tracts of London that have building outlines in OSM already - all of much higher detail than Street View? It's not vast, it doesn't even get to the edge of the underground zone 1. And the detail is comparable to my eye, except for many omissions in OSM. I am not sure how you are quantifying quality. I suspect that the OSM data is more up to date (even if Yahoo is a few years out of date), but OSM still very incomplete even in this supposedly well mapped area. I suspect with the few OSM contributors doing tracing the various sources and given their limited coverage, we are still looking like converging on poor overall coverage given years of effort, so my original point still stands. I say we can compliment our other sources with automatic tracing (be that by importing or editor tools). I guess the question is how much progress can we make on building outlines over different time scales, given different approaches? If you are not talking about bulk imports then please don't call your ideas imports, otherwise you confuse people as to your intentions. I am discussing automatic tracing which applies to both editor tools and imports. There is no rule that I have to discuss one option exclusively. But I was leaning towards more the import paradigm, while the majority seems to be for editor tools. Andy, from my perspective, you have not given a single justified reason against doing imports, so I can't really rebut your position (although other people have made valid points). I suggest you get a bit more constructive and outline your vision for the way ahead on this issue? Continue, as is, with Yahoo and so on? The thing we're looking to not have is automatic imports. London has a lot of buildings, but only in certain areas. What I don't want to have to do is wake up one morning to discover someone has helpfully imported auto-detected rectangles over the top, meaning I have to spend the next three days/years cleaning up the data. If all you want to do is load some buildings into an area (however that's implemented), fix it up to avoid duplicates and conflicts with existing data such as roads, and upload that, then fine. If you want to spend the time comparing against other sources too then even better. If you want to dump buildings into the entire country and hope that everybody gets around to fixing all the problems in their area afterwards, then please don't. Basically: please don't break the map :-) Other than that, tracing OS street view is by far the best source of building outlines we will have in much of the UK at the moment. Dave ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Learning from Tiger for OS - tools motivations
Hello all, It seems there is a consensus on what we do with the OS data: - not bulk importing - careful mix of tracing and perhaps some targeted direct imports, ideally using local knowledge and on-the-ground surveys To achieve that careful mix we need to be clear about areas that are under-mapped and areas that might need fixing with local knowledge. A lot of the debate has been around leaving areas under-mapped, but we have some tools to address this challenge in the UK already. The no names layer was a great motivation for the London mapping parties to complete TimSC's tracing work, and in some parts of the country NOVAM has motivated people to clean up the NAPTAN import. The TIGER import has resulted in a number of big fixup drives. Some more work on tools, and surfacing them better, would surely help the careful mix of tracing and importing have the best impact? For example: - turning the no names red outlines on in Potlach by default - using the no names layer, the semi-transparent OS overlay and simple overlays for density of certain key data to provide a does my area need mapping? page. Best wishes, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 18:07 +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: Basically: please don't break the map :-) perhaps a stupid question... Is there no version control? I couldn't find anything on the wiki about it. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote: On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 18:07 +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: Basically: please don't break the map :-) perhaps a stupid question... Is there no version control? I couldn't find anything on the wiki about it. Sure. But if you go and import everything, and I go and unimport everything, that's not much fun for either of us. Dave ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] tracing lakes with Potlatch
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote: I've been keen for a while to improve the lake and tarns outlines in the lake district. It seems the current data is a little coarse and could be improved. Awesome. Having top-notch maps in popular outdoor areas is one of the big drivers of enthusiasm behind OSM. Also, is it worth bothering, as it seems some of the new OS datasets will have decent lakes and rivers. It's always worth bothering to improve OpenStreetMap, so long as you're OK with the knowledge that at some point in the future someone will improve your work even further! I was improving some loch outlines earlier on today, and anyone who looks at them this afternoon onwards will benefit - irrespective of what the OS datasets may or may not contain in the future. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On 1 April 2010 09:41, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: It's up and available: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf The main wrinkle seems to be this part on their requirement for attribution: include the same acknowledgement requirement in any sub-licenses of the data that you grant, and a requirement that any further sub-licenses do the same Can anyone comment on what that means for us, i.e. whether a simple note on the wiki as per other imports will suffice? The license requires a particular form of attribution and some other conditions, which they claim are compatible with CC-By. But before we get all enthusiastic about importing or tracing things, I think we need to consider the implications of their licence. My reading is that it would require us to include their attribution statement on any product that uses the data, which would include downloads and OSM's slippy may. It may or may not be enough to link to a sources wiki page from the OSM copyright line. More importantly, we also have to ensure that any downstream users are aware of the OS data included, and also ensure that our terms require them to include the OS attribution statement. I don't think the current OSM arrangements would satisfy these requirements, and I'm not sure the viral copyright attributions are something we would really want to accept. I could imagine a point where to print a small OSM derived map in a paper publication would mean including half a dozen copyright lines that would take up more space than the map itself. Moreover, since IIRC ODbL allows rendered maps to be made PD (or any other license) and also allows small data extracts to be used without restriction, I'm not sure that we'd able to use the OS data under their current license if/when we move to ODbL. Until we get clarification on these issues, I'd suggest not importing any of the OS data, or using any of it for tracing. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] tracing lakes with Potlatch
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:37:58 +0100 From: Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net Subject: [Talk-GB] tracing lakes with Potlatch To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: 1270557478.9949.39.ca...@whg21-laptop Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear All, I've been keen for a while to improve the lake and tarns outlines in the lake district. It seems the current data is a little coarse and could be improved. The (fairly poor) aerial imagery seems plenty good enough to get a decent outline, but Potlatch won't allow zooming beyond a certain level in this region, which makes it difficult. Is this something the Potlach 2 will allow? Also, is it worth bothering, as it seems some of the new OS datasets will have decent lakes and rivers. Cheers, Henry I've been tracing from the OS 1:25k first series which Andy Robinson is uploading as a potlatch layer. (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.5384502410889lon=-2.8754997253418zoom=13and http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.3379497528076lon=-2.28412628173828zoom=13 ). You can trace at zoom level 17, and the rectification of the maps is pretty good (compare roads on the maplayer with gps traces). The yahoo imagery for rural areas is worse than useless, IMHO, and the NPE is not well rectified - a comment on the standard of the original mapping, not those who rectified the data for OSM use, I hasten to add. There are very few of the maps available in the Lakes at the moment, but I'm hopeful Andy will continue to upload once the furore over OSOpenData has settled a little. As for the comment from another contributor suggesting don't bother tracing - I say go for it, so long as you have local knowledge of the areas concerned - look further afield (Dales, N York moors etc if you know the areas) and get some detail on, but use the best source for tracing available; which at the moment is OS1:25k First Edition. Cheers, Phil. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 15:28, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 05/04/10 15:43, Tim François wrote: I understand that with an area mapped there is less impetus to head on over and start making tracks and surveying. But just leaving the area blank when we have this fantastic opportunity to populate seems silly, no? This far down the line, it doesn't look like there are any mappers in the immediate area of which I was talking about. I speak from personal experience - when we first got the Yahoo imagery I enthusiastically traced the nearest largely unmapped area to me (Harlow) from the images. That was several years ago and to this day most of the roads in Harlow exist but are unnamed because nobody has taken up the baton. In the only London meet-up I've been to I spoke at length to a person whose main contribution to OSM is adapting her walks around London to Yahoo! streetname surveying. While I understand what you're saying I think it's also important to recognize that we all have different ways to contribute. Some potential OSM contributors may not be interested in on-the-ground surveying, and some aren't interested in chair mapping. The two can compliment each other. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
