I wrote this in expectation of sending to the west mids list only, but
decided to copy also to the talk-gb list as well. Apologies for cross
posting.
With the election process underway we might think about a topical map. If we
can get the ward boundary data into OSM in time then we could show
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.
Agreed from my point of view. I only
I see someone has put there name down at this event for giving a talk - I am
prepared to contribute something too, if you would like soe support,
James Stewart
Dr James Stewart
Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation
University of Edinburgh
http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk
On 07/04/10 09:45, Chris Browet wrote:
For clients supporting multiple projections, wouldn't it be best to have
a WMS (preferably a WMS-C) allowing to choose between the 2 projections
(+ EPSG:4326, maybe)? It might be that
http://os.openstreetmap.org/wms/map.php?source=sv;
Hi,
Tom Hughes wrote:
For clients supporting multiple projections, wouldn't it be best to have
a WMS (preferably a WMS-C) allowing to choose between the 2 projections
(+ EPSG:4326, maybe)? It might be that
http://os.openstreetmap.org/wms/map.php?source=sv;
On 07/04/10 09:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
You could use the recently open-sourced http://mapproxy.org/ instead of
the very simple WMS that someone wrote in PHP. Mapproxy combines tiles
and scales or even reprojects them to fit any WMS request. And offers
proper GetCapability responses. The
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:51, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 07/04/10 09:45, Chris Browet wrote:
For clients supporting multiple projections, wouldn't it be best to have
a WMS (preferably a WMS-C) allowing to choose between the 2 projections
(+ EPSG:4326, maybe)? It might be that
On 07/04/10 10:18, Chris Browet wrote:
Well, if it has been deemed reasonable to make the tile available
through WMS/TMS, I don't see the silliness of having them unaltered in
the first place, then maybe reprojected...
That presupposes that we have a set of OSGB tiles. We don't, we have a
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:20, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 07/04/10 10:18, Chris Browet wrote:
Well, if it has been deemed reasonable to make the tile available
through WMS/TMS, I don't see the silliness of having them unaltered in
the first place, then maybe reprojected...
That
I'd prefer to see boundaries handled by an automated (and nationwide) import
process, as the OS data is likely to be at least as good as contributors' own
efforts and usually much better AND they are committed to maintaining it going
forward. Which seems a good opportunity to mention that those
I began producing a second set of tiles in addition to RichardF's
scripted set that uses a slightly different production method.
Both rely on gdalwarp at the core, and this can be assumed to be correct
(I hope!)
Both sets were generated using z16 as the base resolution, and both can
be
Steve wrote:
I'd prefer to see boundaries handled by an automated (and
nationwide)
import process, as the OS data is likely to be at least as good as
contributors' own efforts and usually much better AND they are
committed
to maintaining it going forward. Which seems a good opportunity to
...snip...
As a point of note while I was just doing a little test editing with these
tiles, using the WMS function in JOSM I wasn't getting the necessary quality
to read the street names, even with a change resolution request, so I
swapped out to the slippy map viewer which was much better
On 7 April 2010 11:29, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote:
Its also worth noting how the OS maintains this boundary-line data. Its not
apparently, as you might have thought, tied to OS MasterMap, which you
would
think would provide precise positioning based upon
Chris Browet wrote:
I'm not too sure the reprojection from EPSG:27700 (OSGB36) to
EPSG:900913 (Google) went perfect.
If you're tracing from _any_ source without first aligning it with a
trustworthy ground reference (typically an average of existing GPS
tracks), You're Doing It Wrong.
When thinking about maintaining boundary imports, there is a further
complication in that many boundaries follow other features - that are
already mapped with varying degrees of precision.
I can see a case for handling boundaries differently since the OS boundary
data is definitive - in the
dear all,
On 07/04/2010 09:51, James Stewart wrote:
I see someone has put there name down at this event for giving a talk -
I am prepared to contribute something too, if you would like soe support,
http://okscotland.eventbrite.com/
It would be great to have a State of the Scottish Map talk
Tom Chance [mailto:t...@acrewoods.net] wrote:
Sent: 07 April 2010 11:41 AM
To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
Cc: Ed Loach; Steve Doerr; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] West Mids Ward Boundaries
On 7 April 2010 11:29, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
ajrli...@googlemail.com
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
If you're tracing from _any_ source without first aligning it with a
trustworthy ground reference (typically an average of existing GPS
tracks), You're Doing It Wrong.
It seems that the sort of offset that there is with the new OS data is
different from what
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:42, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Chris Browet wrote:
I'm not too sure the reprojection from EPSG:27700 (OSGB36) to
EPSG:900913 (Google) went perfect.
If you're tracing from _any_ source without first aligning it with a
trustworthy ground reference
On 7 April 2010 12:53, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
In both the edgemaster's and Richard's tiles there are periodic kinks
(about 1 pixel in size) in what should be straight lines. It is more
obvious in Richard's tiles because they are less noisy. Any idea what is
causing that?
On 7 April 2010 12:08, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote:
What I'm meaning by verification is interrogating the boundary line with
the
features already mapped on the ground. In many cases we know where the back
of gardens are for instance, or the position of a
Just to throw more things into the mix, I have a third set of OS Street View
tiles, only z11-z15 though as my overall method's much slower :-( which was
produced using a different workflow to the first two. I'm using TimSC's
warp-gbos program that was used to rectify the Scottish Popular Edition
During all the discussion about OS OpenData, it was suggested that
anything derived from OS data should be surveyed on the ground at a
later date, since on-the-ground surveying is the preferred method of
gathering data.
With that in mind, I've added OS OpenData source tags to OSM Error
[1]. For
What odd choices OS have made in releasing this data! I've not had a good look
until now, so I've only just realised that they've had all these layers and
decided which to release and which to remove.
So they've removed paths but kept their names, removed parks but kept the water
and wooded
Hi all
Thanks James and Jo for showing interest. I put my name down for the event as
an 'undecided' just to reserve a slot for an OSM talk. James, would be great if
you would like to talk. I'm sure myself and other Scot OSMers will be able to
provide some contributions about what's been
On 07/04/10 20:18, Seventy 7 wrote:
What odd choices OS have made in releasing this data! I've not had a good
look until now, so I've only just realised that they've had all these layers
and decided which to release and which to remove.
StreetView is just an existing product - it's not
27 matches
Mail list logo
