Dave F. wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
Really?
Care to expand on that please?
MOST rivers are now being mapped fully and so are areas rather than a line with
some arbitrary width. So there is no 'way' corresponding to some arbitrary mid
Lester Caine wrote:
Dave F. wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
Really?
Care to expand on that please?
MOST rivers are now being mapped fully and so are areas rather
than a line with
some arbitrary width. So there is no 'way'
Ed Loach wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Dave F. wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
Really?
Care to expand on that please?
MOST rivers are now being mapped fully and so are areas rather
than a line with
some arbitrary width. So there is no
Couldn't agree more. Serial deletionism is a concept that I just don't
understand, I'm sure it's well intentioned, but I can't see where it's
coming from.
On to technical details:
There is however a dificulty in distinguishing between when somone
moves somthing because it was previusly mapped at
On 25 Apr 2010, at 07:57, Lester Caine wrote:
If a footpath gets moved do you think I should still show a way mark
it as 'this is where it used to go'?
'closed=2007' makes perfect sense to me. People then coming back to an area
that
they walked 30 years ago would then see why they
Shaun McDonald wrote:
On 25 Apr 2010, at 07:57, Lester Caine wrote:
If a footpath gets moved do you think I should still show a way mark
it as 'this is where it used to go'?
'closed=2007' makes perfect sense to me. People then coming back to an area
that
they walked 30 years ago would
should reflect that.
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:42:49 +0100
From: Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundaries
To: 'talk-gb OSM List' talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Message-ID: 4bd41ca9.90...@lsces.co.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format
Lester Caine wrote:
Dave F. wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
Really?
Care to expand on that please?
MOST rivers are now being mapped fully and so are areas rather than a line
with
some arbitrary width. So there
Dave F. wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Dave F. wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
Really?
Care to expand on that please?
MOST rivers are now being mapped fully and so are areas rather than a
line with some arbitrary width. So there is no 'way'
Lester Caine wrote:
But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
Really?
Care to expand on that please?
Even more important, we need a way to maintain
historic information such as '1995 boundary' where later boundaries are
different.
Why do we need to do that?
I delete out
Chris Hill wrote:
I've been taking a look at the boundary data released as part of the
OS bundle. I've put together a little script that will extract a
named boundary as an OSM file ready for loading into JOSM. OS data
uses the OS projection and we use the WGS84 projection. I used
ogr2ogr to
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
I've had a degree of success with
http://search.cpan.org/~toby/Geo-Coordinates-OSGB-2.04/ - I've used
these packages in the past for rectification of OOC OS stuff and
conversion of many-figure OS grid refs with a good degree of success.
Chris knows this already
: [Talk-GB] OS Boundaries
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
I've had a degree of success with
http://search.cpan.org/~toby/Geo-Coordinates-OSGB-2.04/ - I've used
these packages in the past for rectification of OOC OS stuff and
conversion of many-figure OS grid refs with a good degree of success.
Chris
On 19/04/10 17:18, Chris Hill wrote:
Each boundary needs to share nodes with adjacent ones. County and
district boundaries will also need to share nodes, so the process of
loading them individually might be quite tedious, and would involve
dealing with any existing boundaries. Working on
Tom Hughes wrote:
On 19/04/10 17:18, Chris Hill wrote:
Each boundary needs to share nodes with adjacent ones. County and
district boundaries will also need to share nodes, so the process of
loading them individually might be quite tedious, and would involve
dealing with any existing
Tom Hughes wrote:
On 19/04/10 17:18, Chris Hill wrote:
Each boundary needs to share nodes with adjacent ones. County and
district boundaries will also need to share nodes, so the process of
loading them individually might be quite tedious, and would involve
dealing with any existing
To the list too :)
Tom Hughes wrote:
On 19/04/10 17:18, Chris Hill wrote:
Each boundary needs to share nodes with adjacent ones. County and
district boundaries will also need to share nodes, so the process of
loading them individually might be quite tedious, and would involve
dealing with
John Robert Peterson wrote:
There is also the quite high level question of what is the correct
position for these boundaries: if a boundary follows a river, and the
river has changed course by a few meters since this boundary was
established, does the boundary move with it, or does it stay
On 17/11/09 16:24, Peter Miller wrote:
Possibly we have have some accurate boundary information soon! By 'mid-
level mapping' do they mean Meridian I wonder?
Please to bear in mind this sentence:
The Government will consult on proposals to make data from Ordnance
Survey freely available...
2009/11/17 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu
Data relating to electoral and local authority boundaries as well as
postcode areas would be released for free re-use...
I might be unduly skeptical, especially thinking about some of the people
now advising the Government on this, but I wonder if the
On 17 Nov 2009, at 18:30, Tom Chance wrote:
2009/11/17 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu
Data relating to electoral and local authority boundaries as well as
postcode areas would be released for free re-use...
I might be unduly skeptical, especially thinking about some of the
people now advising
21 matches
Mail list logo
