It is an area that interests me too, explicitly surface expression of
geology, (outcrops and faults mostly) and geomorphology ("interesting"
drumlins, meander loops, landslips, ...).
My personal conclusion is that by all means do low-key experimentation
but that any systematic mapping is better off for all in a separate but
compatible database a la Open Historical Map ... and a lot easy to
implement than the historic map.
Like Jerry I still have all my old field books and hand-drawn OS ?1:5000
overlays. Do students still do it like that? If so, one thing that
intrigues me as a project is to set up a system whereby students could
map digitally into an OSM-friendly system so that progressively all
those little squares build up a comprehensive outcrop map of all the
UK. There is probably all sorts of small stuff here and there buried in
student assignments that was missed by the pros. Collated together it
might also provide a seriously useful academic resource.
I already map historic mining activity in northern Yorkshire and Co.
Durham directly into OSM as it is something that can be systematically
migrated to another resource when the time comes. Motivated by
Jonathan's posting, I have just done a knowledge dump [1] . I would
greatly welcome other joining me elsewhere the country. I map from NPE,
OS25K, Bing imagery and local knowledge. Bing imagery is fascinating in
moorland areas. See [2] for example of a place I have stayed at several
times completely unaware that the close proximity is riddled with old,
probably lead, mine shafts.
Mike
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Historic_Mining_Activity
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/54.15584/-2.01688 Buckden,
Wharfedale example of mine shaft identification using Bing imagery.
On 11/10/2013 00:25, SK53 wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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.
So was wondering what people thought about it?
Jonathan
--
http://bigfatfrog67.me
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
