[Talk-GB] New National Cycle Network route 31
Just a heads up to any cycling mappers in the East of England. NCN route 31 between Beccles and Southwold has recently been opened and hasn't been mapped yet. See: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/beccles_and_southwold_linked_by_new_cycle_route_1_900520 -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Electricity generator tagging
On 26/05/11 11:51, Peter Miller wrote: We have releases a new Electricity generation map using ITO Map ... snip That's convenient since I just tagged the gas fired and biomass CHP plants at my university the other day. :) What is the best way to tag wind farms? Currently one near me has nodes for each turbine with power_source=wind on each one. It seems it would be better to have each one as man_made=wind_turbine or something and group them together with a relation, since the estimated energy output of a wind farm is usually stated as a whole rather than per turbine. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK road name coverage now over 80%
On 29/06/11 17:37, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote: I think all UK contributors should buy themselves a pint for that. Top effort. Already done, but ok I'll have another! I'd like to make a special mention for North Norfolk which was in the bottom 10 on the ITO table just a few months ago, and is now at 99.51% (and now I think 100% since I've added the names of five service roads in an RAF base). Great job everyone! -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 04/07/11 18:36, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). No, because they've agreed that licensing their data under ODbL is not a breach of their original licence. That means that once it is under ODbL it is simply a matter of whether DbCL is compatible with ODbL, which I'm assuming it is. I other words, once the data is licensed under ODbL, the OS OpenData license is irrelevant. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bing background showing OS 1:50k when zoomed in to areas with no detailed coverage
On 19/09/11 19:09, Donald Noble wrote: I am getting OS 1:50k background mapping when zoomed in to areas with no detailed coverage in the Bing aerial imagery. [snip] An example is at Coulter, North Lanarkshire - http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=55.58837lon=-3.54917zoom=15 Confirmed. That's an odd one. I guess it must be an error on Bing's end if it's happening in both editors. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK cities
On 17/10/11 11:12, Simon Blake wrote: Why are we missing St David's? Although it has a cathedral, it's not a city. It's widely regarded as one, but it's not on the official list. It is on the list referenced under Welsh cities. Apparently it was given its city status in 1995 by Royal Charter. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK cities
On 17/10/11 14:26, Ed Avis wrote: So in the long term the answer may be to stop rendering and address lookup and other applications from using the place=city nodes at all, but have them work based on areas. Then the ambiguous place nodes can eventually disappear. The main problem with this is that towns/cities don't always grow outwards into perfect circles. This means that the centroid of the city boundary can end up in some insignificant suburb of the city rather than the much more desirable place in the city centre. I think a better solution would be to tag some place as being the city centre and then the renderer can be told: place the name somewhere within the area of the city, but try to place it close to the city centre. I think this sort of thing is generally hard to do with automated rendering. The City of Westminster doesn't need to be shown at the country level, but it should be shown at the London level. The city of Ely isn't really very significant, in fact it's a lot less significant than some medium-large towns. A human cartographer with knowledge of the UK knows this, but how can we tell the renderer? -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Freemap-VMD : OpenData plus OSM footpaths
On 23/10/11 12:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Did an initial experiment with this a while back but now I've extended the area of coverage to include much of England and all of Wales. Looks good, although I think the VMD layer is too transparent; I struggle to see where RoWs join up to roads as the road seems to disappear at that point. Have you tried adding barrier=fence/wall/hedge to it? I know they're not on the OS Landrangers, but they are very useful when they are there. Maybe they only work at 1:25k, though. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
On 30/10/11 17:34, Graham Jones wrote: Brian, Sounds like a good challange. Main issue is that we will need to decide how to tag breweries - mostly 'landuse=industrial' or 'building=yes' at the moment, but I can not find anything specific to a brewery? This wiki page suggests craft=brewery https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft%3Dbrewery I recently added the Woodfordes brewery to the map: http://osm.org/go/0EZUeZm8y-- Just added St Peter's too: http://osm.org/go/0EZAcgPVK-- The good thing is a lot of these breweries have shops and pubs on site so there is no excuse for not going out and finding them! -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
On 13/11/11 22:46, Graham Jones wrote: With some help from Craig Loftus, and a bottle of Old Speckled Hen, I have set up a first go at a UK BrewMap rendering, using the craft=brewery | industry=brewery | microbrewery=yes scheme. You should be able to see it at http://brewmap.maps3.org.uk. Looks good to me, nice work! Are you going to add distilleries and cider houses too? For distilleries I think we need to be more specific about what spirits they produce. I mapped St George's Distillery the other day (the English whisky distillery) and invented the tag: distillery=whisky Do we need to make a distinction between whisky and whiskey? I don't know much about whiskey, I seem to remember the difference is more than just spelling. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
On 19/11/11 10:59, Graham Jones wrote: This has swapped quite a few big breweries from the map to the tagQueries list, so if anyone gets bored, feel free to change the tags to 'industrial=brewery'. For some reason this tag query was not picking up the Adnams brewery which was named Adnams Brewery. I have updated this one but there may be some more that are not appearing on the list. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Retour de l'autoroute britannique
On 08/12/11 13:13, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Set your stopwatches for the first newspaper story about man drives off cliff - '...but Google told me it was a road'!. Some of their choices are, shall we say, a little heroic. Oh dear... Some highlights in my area: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=googlemapmt1=mapniklon=1.36799lat=52.60886zoom=16 This is a very bumpy single track public bridleway with gates at either end. It's actually part of NCN1 but an alternative, longer route is provided for those wanting a smoother ride. http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=googlemapmt1=mapniklon=1.22878lat=52.62211zoom=16 That cycle path is bollarded at either end and the track is for private use and has locked gates. So no, there is no access by motorvehicle to the university from the West. http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=googlemapmt1=mapniklon=1.23534lat=52.65464zoom=15 You've got to be kidding me... Marriot's way is a disused railway path which is now a cycle path with horses allowed too. Motorvehicles are not allowed. The bridlepaths are all unpaved and muddy. And many more. Sorry, Google, but there is no substitute for surveys and local knowledge. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS VectorMap water feature import
First of all, when I say import I mean a manual import: reprojection of OS shapefiles, conversion to OSM data and careful processing in JOSM before uploading. I'd really like to get all the water features from OS into OSM. It's very useful data and also makes maps prettier. It's quite a laborious task, though, as the data requires manual creation of multipolygons and of course merging with any water features we already have. I have already done a small amount here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.6006lon=1.6362zoom=13layers=M Although I have not joined together all gaps, just some gaps where a way crosses it and it is obviously a conduit. Now I have split the Vectormap square TG into smaller chunks which I plan to process one by one and upload. The amount of data in just this square is quite large, but it's still probably less than half of Norfolk. Have any large scale imports from this dataset already been done? Do people think this is a good idea? Any suggestions regarding the process? Happy mapping, Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS VectorMap water feature import
On 11/12/11 13:08, Chris Hill wrote: As always, I would say use the OS data for areas you know. So when you say 'all water features from OS' I hope you mean in an area you know and not the whole of Great Britain. No I don't mean the whole of GB. I would only do my own county. But I don't really know the area that intimately, I just have a broad idea of what is going on. The place I linked around Breydon Water is very remote, it's just miles and miles of marshland. Without the water it's a big blank bit of map, which is what made me want to add the water in the first place. If you just want OSM to look like OS, you could just use OS. True. Maybe I should instead make a rendering that uses water from OS VectorMap and everything else from OSM. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS VectorMap water feature import
On 12/12/11 21:49, Jason Cunningham wrote: Original release of Vectormap had more detailed water features, but this years release appears to have been dumbed down. If you got them I'd use the first detailed release of water features. Does anyone know where copies of the original release are available? -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Rail as a brand (was: Bulk railway station changes)
On 21/05/12 16:37, AJ Ashton wrote: In the previous thread it was mentioned that many people don't commonly refer to any part of the system as 'National Rail', but it seems that is the official name for the double-arrow brand used on signage and maps. I don't know if this was mentioned in the previous thread, but I'll just add that the London Underground does, or at least used to, refer to it as national rail. It says international rail for St Pancras etc. too. Maybe other TfL services do the same? -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] NSL in built-up areas: what source:maxspeed to use?
On 25/05/12 12:30, Andrew Chadwick wrote: What value should we use for source:maxspeed=* in built-up areas when there's no signage or road markings, just street lights? There *should* always be signage indicating a change in maxspeed from something else to 30 mph. The street lights merely act as repeaters, since normally repeaters are required every so many yards for a non-NSL limit. The presence of street lights does *not* mean 30 mph (just need to look at any lit motorway for evidence of this). I have found anomalies, though. In fact, I happen to live on a road which is not signed correctly. It joins a 40 mph road, but there is no indication of change of speed limit. I have informed my local council about this but never heard anything back. I think really the only thing we can do in such situations is use common sense. So source:maxspeed=common_sense? Alternatively, you could ask the local council which should know the real limits. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Supermarkets being changed
On 03/07/12 23:22, Ben Pollinger wrote: Some of these have since been altered to remove the shop and name keys from the area, then adding a node with these tags roughly to the middle of the area. E.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11182447 User ehm1806 has been doing quite a lot of edits that mess up areas. A number of multipolygons were broken and I lost some information about the barriers in the process of cleaning it up. I have contacted them and told them to look out for multipolygons, ie. if they're rendered on mapnik, but not in Potlatch, then it's probably a multipolygon. The user should probably be asked to leave meaningful changeset comments as well. Quite honestly, I think it should be a requirement. No free software project would merge changes without at the very least a one line comment, often much more is required. Personally I self impose the requirement, it really makes you think about what you're doing and whether it's better for the map. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On Countryside paths
On 21/08/12 19:11, Adam Hoyle wrote: Speaking of the which, anyone have any idea when the designation tag will be rendered on the main OSM renderer (or even in Potlatch which would do me in the short term). The mapnik layer on osm.org is an international map so it doesn't support things like PROW designations which have no meaning outside of England and Wales. What you want is something like freemap: http://www.free-map.org.uk/ But it seems it does not show the whole of GB any more. I'm not sure why. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Acceptability of data sources for road names
On 30/09/12 10:59, Donald Noble wrote: And one other that doesn't fit on this continuum is asking a local resident what the name of the new road is. This seems completely obviously ok to me, why would you think otherwise? I too have wondered about signs with maps on them. The thing is, you can't copyright facts, but databases are a special exception. Is a sign with a few road names on it a database? I would say no. But IANAL. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mid Devon Mappers - on your marks...
On 19/03/13 08:49, Colin Smale wrote: In case anybody has been updating OSM by removing the apostrophes, you might need to put them back again... http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/18/apostrophe-ban-council-backs-down-and-reinstates-punctuation-3547409/ Fascinating. Norwich doesn't use any punctuation on road name signs. I actually had to do a survey to check this as, confusingly, the OS OpenData names *do* use punctuation. So for example there is a road that has the sign St Faiths Road that exists in OS as St Faith's Road, in Google as St. Faith's Road (incorrect abbreviation of Saint in BrE) and in OSM as Saint Faiths Road since the wiki says don't use abbreviations. Personally I think OSM should always contain what it says on the sign, though. Knowing what the map in city hall says is less important. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] BBC News - Google Map Maker edit tools extended to cover the UK
On 11/04/13 14:59, Dave F. wrote: On 11/04/2013 08:12, Andy Mabbett wrote: No mention of OSM in this piece: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22099960 A couple of quotes from Chris has now been added, however it still disappointing it reads like an advert even an instruction manual. Indeed, and the bit about OSM is found in the bottom 3/4 of the article which, let's be honest, most people will not see. The BBC News technology section is usually just an advert for big tech companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft. Terrible really. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] cycle.travel - new OSM-powered cycling site
On 28/11/13 13:15, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Thought I might show you what I've been working on for the last year or so. :) http://cycle.travel/ is a new everyday cycling website for Britain and it won't surprise you to learn it has lots of OSM mapping in there. This looks fantastic. The circular route maker is particularly impressive. I can help getting the Norwich guide started. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Royal Mail Parcelforce delivery offices
On 12/01/14 12:30, Andy Street wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:52:02 + John Aldridge j...@jjdash.demon.co.uk wrote: Is there a consensus on how to tag Royal Mail Parcel Force delivery offices? Are these amenity=post_office, or something else? If there is a facility that allows the general public access to collect or send mail then I'd consider amenity=post_office to be appropriate. They're not Post Offices, though. Post Office (capitalised) has a very specific meaning in the UK, with more services than just posting letters. It depends what we want amenity=post_office to mean but I'd say at a minimum without further tags it should mean you can actually post something. If someone goes to a Local Delivery Office with a parcel to post they will be in for a surprise. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us
On 04/05/18 20:10, Brian Prangle wrote: When will it be appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the 47 instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all closed now? My local one is now closed and leaving a large gap on its retail park Just a note for if you do do this: the shop in my town was named 'Toys Я Us' with alt_name set to 'Toys "R" Us'. Worth adding those alternatives to your search as the second one at least is probably used a lot. Happy mapping, Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us
On 05/05/18 13:03, Andy Townsend wrote: Taking as read the arguments in for and against a mechanical edit for possibly closed shops* it'd be great if shops that we definitely know are now closed could be properly tagged as what they are now, so for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1485964357#map=19/53.98855/-1.09350 can then be rendered as https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21=53.988577=-1.0934931 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3265969285 as https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=53.9879136=-1.049185 . I don't think anybody is arguing that vacant shops should be mechanically removed, just that they might become disused:amenity etc. I never remove the name until the sign has gone. I would love it if the renders actually showed this, though. The amenity icon will go, but it's not completely clear that the amenity no longer really exists. Happy mapping, Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK coastline data
Hi, I've recently done an import of coastline data from OS VectorMap into OSM around The Wash. I did this because I'm interested in coastal regions and the coastline was a complete mess in that area. I'm sure it's similar in other parts of GB as well. The mess often happens because mappers don't necessarily know what a "coastline" is (I didn't before I researched it). For land-based maps the coastline that is shown is generally shown is mean high water level. The other "coastline" that is also shown on land-based maps is the mean lower water level. The bit between these lines is the intertidal zone. This is admittedly a bit less interesting, but it's certainly useful when there are causeways and other features in the intertidal zone. The actual high and low tides can be higher or lower than the means. The tide varies throughout the month and the highest highs and lowest lows are called spring tides. Nautical charts will show the lowest low, not mean low. This seems like quite difficult data to obtain so using OS seems to be the obvious choice here. I'm pleased with how the import went in The Wash. It integrated well with the existing OSM data around the coastline. It's certainly a lot easier to integrate than groundwater but it does require a lot of manual processing. But before I start importing other areas (I'm looking at the Blackwater estuary next), I want to discuss it with others because I'm concerned that the way I've done it could negatively impact other mappers. The data as it comes is essentially the two coastlines as described above: MHW and MLW. The MHW can just replace the existing coastline in OSM. It adds many, many more nodes to the coastlines, and possibly more ways too. The MLW along with MHW then can form multipolygons containing the intertidal zone, which is mapped as a wetland=tidalflat. Using the coastline to make multipolygons means the coastline is broken up into many, many small ways. One concern is that the GB island multipolygon will become very hard to maintain. On my computer JOSM is very slow to operate when I load this multipolygon. So before I continue I'd like to give people the chance to tell me to stop and, if necessary, suggest a better way to do this import. Or maybe people wouldn't like to see this import done at all. Personally I think there is value in integrating the data but some may disagree. Happy mapping, Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:19 PM Colin Smale wrote: > I would recommend you don't refer to "the two coastlines" as this will > just lead to confusion. The one true coastline is the high water line, > taken to be MHWS (in England and Wales). The low water mark is also > useful because that is where the jurisdiction of local authorities > normally ends. Oh yeah, the reason I wrote about the "other coastline" was because I think it sometimes does cause confusion. In the area I was looking the mapped coastline was sometimes the MHW, sometimes the MLW, and sometimes it was mapped at the sea wall which in that case would be an exceptionally high tide or storm surge. But yes, the coastline should only be the MHW. > * Coastal admin boundaries (the "Extent of the Realm") are usually MLWS, > but there are such things as "seaward extensions" which extend the > "realm" further into the water. Check out for example Brighton Marina, > Torbay, City of Bristol. I have noticed the boundaries often correspond with MLW. I have tried to leave the boundaries alone even when they overlap with the MLW because I thought combining them might be confusing. > * Where the "coastline" crosses the mouth of a river or estuary, there > has been lots of discussion about this in the past, as usual without a > clear definitive verdict. The OS data will take you upstream to the > tidal limit of rivers, which sometimes gives results which some people > find undesirable. Example: River Dart in Devon. Yes, this was something I meant to ask as well. Often the coastlines cross the rivers at completely arbitrary points. Thinking about it too much brings up the famous coastline paradox. Mapping it right back to the tidal limit does seem like the only way that isn't arbitrary. The Dart cuts the coastline off right at the mouth, which doesn't seem right at all to me. It would be good to be consistent. > * The OS MHWS data will also place tidal inlets outside the coastline; > there is a proposal/vote underway which seems to confirm this, but > existing data might not: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:waterway%3Dtidal_channel Yes, it does on the data I've been looking at. But this seems correct to me for the same reason as the tidal extent of rivers. > * My personal opinion is that the OS data is likely to be professionally > curated, and is probably the most accurate source we are ever going to > get. In many places you might conclude that it is wrong, when > comparing it to aerial imagery. However we will never know the tidal > conditions at the time of the imagery. The coastline, and the > low-water mark more so, is subject to change over the course of time, > and OS doesn't resurvey coastal boundaries very often (although they > seem to do it every few years). I would recommend adding the date of > the OS data to the OSM coastline, to aid future updates. Yes, indeed. I regret not adding the version to the data I imported. I suppose it could be determined from the date it was added to OSM. It should be quite easy to keep it up to date, though. The "replace geometry" plugin in JOSM is very useful for this. Happy mapping, Borbus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:17 AM Mark Goodge wrote: > It's also one of the most useful from a leisure perspective, as a lot of > popular beaches fall primarily or wholly in the intertidal zone. Take, > for example, Hunstanton in Norfolk - at high tide the sea comes all the > way up to the sea wall, and there is no beach as such on the town centre > seafront. But, at low tide, there's a large expanse of sand. And, in > between, there are differing amounts of sand visible! Hunstantson was one of the beaches I updated in my edits. The data is now correct, but the carto layer doesn't actually show the coastline (the MHW level) unfortunately. Interesting that you mention the sand and mud further south. At some point between Hunstanton and Snettisham the intertidal zone changes from "beach" to "tidal flat". I've actually continued the "beach" all the way down to Snettisham with the "tidal flats" starting beyond the nature reserve. This is quite an important distinction, because if you go to those areas expecting a beach but get a tidal flat you'll be in for a (probably unpleasant) surprise. Any idea where to draw the line here? There's a similar situation on the other side between Skegness and Gibraltar Point. Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 7:46 AM Devonshire wrote: > I think the main reason I did that back in the day is that mapping > coastline all the way up to Totnes seems extremely > non-intuitive. Someone standing on Totnes quay (10 miles inland) is not > standing on the coast in any meaningful way. Does that matter, though? The way many things in OSM are tagged is quite arbitrary. What if "coastline" just means "mean high water level"? A tag for MHWL seems much more useful than "you would probably consider this the coast rather than a river bank". > I don't really care either way but what would be the benefit of changing > it to coastline (and slavishly copying the OS is not a benefit) ? The benefit is we don't have to arbitrarily draw the line somewhere. The tidal limit is well-defined so it's easy to be consistent. Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM wrote: > The old coastline (August 2018) is blue and the current coastal line > is red. The blue shows what I was talking about earlier where some of the coastline was at MLWL and some was all the way up at the sea wall (exceptionally high tide). > The affected areas are wetlands, whose "coastline" is very complex. In > my opinion, the problem is that this "coastline" is not static, > because it is a natural runoff that will never be stable. It will look > quite different after several months. I am familiar with this area. Those areas are salt marshes and much more stable than you might think. The main change that has happened over the past ten years in this area is the high water marks have receded. This is reflected in the most recent OS data that I've used. Those inlets are deep tidal channels and definitely should be on the map. A smoothed coastline would be a huge loss in this area. The bits that would change a lot more are the low water levels because this land is comprised of soft mud and sand. Unfortunately none of the aerial imagery we have available cover these vast tidal flats. Most cut off at the "coastline" (high water level). Borbus. On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM wrote: > Hi, > > I don't think you should accept this data. > see: > https://wambachers-osm.website/images/osm/snaps_2019/strange_coastline.png_2019/strange_coastline.png > > The old coastline (August 2018) is blue and the current coastal line is > red. > > The affected areas are wetlands, whose "coastline" is very complex. In my > opinion, the problem is that this "coastline" is not static, because it is > a natural runoff that will never be stable. It will look quite different > after several months. > > A manually smoothed coastline (better than the one from 2018) would be > appropriate. > > ym2c from germany. > > walter > Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator > > -- > My projects: > > Admin Boundaries of the World <https://wambachers-osm.website/boundaries> > Missing Boundaries > <https://wambachers-osm.website/index.php/projekte/internationale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries> > Emergency Map <https://wambachers-osm.website/emergency> > Postal Code Map (Germany only) <https://wambachers-osm.website/plz> > Fools (QA for zipcodes in Germany) <https://wambachers-osm.website/fools> > Postcode Boundaries of Germany > <https://wambachers-osm.website/pcoundaries> > ___ > 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] UK coastline data
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:11 PM Devonshire wrote: > Just because the coastline follows MLW as it goes around the coast > doesn't mean it needs to follow every tidal waterway inland. That > doesn't follow at all. Why not? What is the meaning of "coastline"? The Dart is one example of where it seems obvious where to "draw the line" by taking a cursory glance at aerial imagery, but does this line have any bearing on reality? My feeling is that the natural=coastline tag is a misnomer and it should really just be called "mean_high_water_level" or "mean_high_water_spring" (I'm still unsure about whether OS show MHWL or MHWS, I thought it was MHWL, which is between mean high water spring and mean high water neap). Is there a meaning to "coastline" that makes it distinct from any other high water level that can't be expressed with other tags? (Other tags could be water salinity, presence of beaches, dunes, cliffs etc. that are real physical features). > To achieve what you want you would need to add yet another way inside of > the riverbank and intertidal areas which seems like a fair bit of effort > to do for every river for no real benefit to map users whatsoever. Then > you need to get it all to render right where you have tidal mud banks, > etc. in the centre of the river. That data is included with the OS tidal waters data. It's not much more effort to use it and it's very useful data for many people. People use maps for many different things. Rendering is not a problem. Carto handles it just fine already. But it does expect the intertidal zone to be between a "coastline" and the edge of a tidalflat. -- Borbus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 9:44 PM Colin Smale wrote: > Coastline would be the high water line, not low water. But your point is > valid - equating coastline to MHW could better be called a heuristic > instead of a rule. It works most of the time, but we have to accommodate > exceptions. All we have to do now, is to define what constitutes an > exception. Yes, I agree with this. MHW and MLW are nice because they are indisputable (assuming accuracy and currency of data). I don't think anybody would disagree with taking all of the OS MHWS data and tagging it with "natural=mean_high_water_spring" or something. The disagreement seems to come over whether those lines coincide with "natural=coastline" or "natural=water"/"waterway=riverbank". A big difference with the coastline (and this is especially true for Britain, of course) is it is actually what defines Britain (the island). I guess the River Thames is generally considered to be "in Britain". Could we possibly use administrative boundaries to cut mark the cut off point between coastline and riverbank then? That would place the "coastline" at the mouth of the Thames here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.5038=0.6775#map=12/51.4876/0.6736 And the Dart here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.5038=0.6775#map=17/50.38223/-3.59310 -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data
Hello again, I've finished integrating the VectorMap data all the way along North Norfolk and now the Blackwater estuary too. I did a survey in Maldon before I made changes near the town to make sure nothing was wildly different. It looks like the new Maxar imagery is quite recent in that area and, helpfully, was taken at low tide. I made minor adjustments to the VectorMap data in places where the more recent imagery showed significant differences. I wanted to fix up some other coastal areas I'm familiar with, such as around Folkestone and Dover, but these areas consist of features other than beaches and mud flats that are less clear to me how to map (like "beaches" consisting of large rocks from the cliffs). There has been a change merged into osm-carto which will, in my opinion, degrade the rendering of many of these tidal areas. You can see the change here, along with my concerns at the bottom (I am georgek): https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3707 Doing this work, and seeing the above changes to osm-carto got me thinking that the time is ripe to sort out how we do water in OSM. There are fundamentally two concerns which are currently conflated in OSM: * The water area, ie. "you will not be dry if you try to stand here", * The water boundary, which could be a river/sea bank, a building, a mean high water level, and maybe other things. The area and the boundary are both important for different reasons and convey very different information. At the moment we handle boundaries very poorly in OSM. This makes actually rendering the boundary very difficult, because it will actually cross water areas in at least two cases: where rivers meet oceans, and where river areas join together. If these were all done using multipolygons we could separate the concerns completely. So I propose to do this: map areas as multipolygons and boundaries by ways which define multipolygons. Water boundaries could be any of: * natural=coastline, this should roughly correspond to the legal boundaries of the country, ie. the coastline is the edge of the country, * natural=riverbank, for rivers, usually these are managed separately from sea banks, (we can't use the unfortunately named waterway=riverbank, because that actually defines a water area, not a river bank), * natural=shore, for lakes and anything else? * anonymous ways, for cases where the bank is not very significant, this can just be mapped as a normal polygon, for example a pond, These boundaries can coincide with orthogonal tidal features which I also propose: * tidal:mean_high_water_spring=yes, * tidal:mean_low_water_spring=yes, * tidal:... for other levels of interest like astronomical low (for nautical charts), Note that these can exist where no bank is present, e.g. on beaches. These boundaries can also contain many other useful pieces of information such as: material of bank, man made or natural, mooring, ownership, management and probably many more things. It could be quite possible to have a way in which all of the following features coincide: * natural=coastline, * tidal:mean_high_water_spring=yes, * tidal:mean_low_water_spring=yes, * man_made=sea_bank, * material=concrete, * barrier=wall, * mooring=private, It's also quite possible to have a completely distinct seabank, high water level and low water level, e.g. in areas of reclaimed land where a man made sea bank is a flood defence and is well above mean high water level. Sorry for such a long post. I would like to identify any problems with what I'm thinking quickly before I proceed to make proposals for these on the wiki. So if I could ask people to just give a rough thumbs up or thumbs down to this kind of approach I would be grateful. Thanks, and happy mapping, Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data
> Just a quick comment. Parts of the Maxar imagery seem to have significant offsets. I have noticed that too. The geometry is often wonky with incorrect angles. I'm not sure how that's possible, but comparison with something like Esri reveals it. At the moment I'm using it more for confirming details that aren't present on older imagery rather than trying to get precise geometry from it. On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:24 PM ael wrote: > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:34:53PM +0100, Borbus wrote: > > looks like the new Maxar imagery is quite recent in that area and, > > Just a quick comment. Parts of the Maxar imagery seem to have significant > offsets. At least I have noticed that it often does not match my > (fairly accurate) gps tracks. And its offsets don't match those for > Maxbox. I think it is marked "beta" presumably in case of these sorts > of problem. > > ael > > > ___ > 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] Cheers Drive, Bristol
I've long suspected that local councils and other government bodies are giving data directly to Google. I've seen developments turn up on Google maps that couldn't possibly have been established with a survey. It's all really shady. But at least we can say, even in this case, that OSM is the more accurate reflection of reality. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:47 AM Jez Nicholson wrote: > Just been reading about the naming of a new road in Bristol "Cheers Drive" > which is apparently a local way to thank a bus/taxi driver > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-51501412 > > Thing that caught my eye was the reference to Google Maps having it on > already which made me wonder how, because the road signs haven't been > installed yet? Are they importing road change notices from the Council? > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.46730/-2.54036 > > > https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Cheers+Dr,+Speedwell,+Bristol+BS5+7FQ/@51.4669956,-2.5405969,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x48718fc9fa803fa1:0x28c4a3d7786bfeab > ___ > 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
