I had a very brief chat with someone at SotM touching on this. I don't think the 1inch:10 mile data is at all useful in OSM: it's too generalised and would result in huge awkward to maintain polygons. However in many places the field geology is much more detailed and is both at a scale compatible with OSM and there is potential for adding lots of detail. This is particularly true in the "Classic Areas": Matlock, Arran, Craven etc. I'm sure I'm not alone in having some old field notebooks (including laboriously drawn maps traced from OS & Geological Survey) with masses of such detail.
Probably the place to start is in finding a way to map classic exposures (many will be protected as SSSIs). I know I've added a small cliff (quarry) face which is the southernmost exposure of Magnesian Limestone, but I don't know if I added any geology related tags at the time. Faults may be another feature suitable for mapping in the short term: in the coal measures many of these will be adequately mapped on out-of-copyright geology maps (I would think virtually all the 1 inch maps ought to be OOC by now). A related topic is old mines & quarries. There is a substantial literature & community interested in the industrial archaeology of mining. In many places the impact on the landscape & artefacts are still (all too) present. Adding information about the geology alongside the archaeology would make mapping much more informative (see things like the Manganese mines of Merionethshire <http://www.davel.f2s.com/hendrecoed/Merioneth-Manganese/>or Dolaucothi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolaucothi_Gold_Mines>). There are also aspects of geology (and possibly soils) which are of interest to naturalists. Apart from broad things like lime-rich soils, one often comes across fine detail: the thing which occurs to me are gley soils in alluvial deposits. These locations are usually not quarried in gravel pits and therefore have their original vegetation. Enough ideas, if you want to waste a couple of hours the Borehole Database on the IGS site is absolutely fascinating! Jerry On 10 October 2013 22:32, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering whether anybody had discussed importing geological data > into OSM before. We map surface details about the land cover and > underground use if it's man-made so why not geological data? > > The BGS have a load of data at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/** > opengeoscience/downloads.html<http://www.bgs.ac.uk/opengeoscience/downloads.html> > . > > So was wondering what people thought about it? > > Jonathan > > -- > http://bigfatfrog67.me > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
