Hi Jason,
Hmm, I see what you mean around Looe, it does look a bit suspicious. I
am going to poke around in the OS OpenMap Local data to see if that data
is better. I can see there are "Tidal Boundary", "Tidal Water" and
"Foreshore" shapefiles included which might be useful.
//colin
On 2016-12-12 08:40, Jason Woollacott wrote:
> Colin,
>
> I've been doing some coastline updates around the South West, and have been
> basing my coastline on the OS_StreetView map layer which also shows MHW.
> however the GPX file does not seem to match this. In Cornwall, which has a
> very jagged coast, you can never rely on Bing as the angles are quite often
> wrong, but on flatter ground, say around, Looe,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.35216/-4.44840
>
> The GPX around the pier goes well into the sea (about 6m), compared to the OS
> SV layer which links fairly close to the bing image at that point.
>
> Agreed that the coastline extract is much better than the PGS, which is a
> still straight lines in some places. however, one other area that the GPX
> extract doesn't seem to cover is the islet and rocks which are above sea
> level even at high water level. (See the Looe link again)
>
> Jason (Unieagle)
>
> -------------------------
>
> FROM: David Groom <[email protected]>
> SENT: 12 December 2016 00:51
> TO: [email protected]
> SUBJECT: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
>
> Colin
>
> I was more talking about the actual shape of the MHW rather than its
> position; if that makes sense.
>
> some examples of problems in the Isle of Wight
>
> 1) There's a section here
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.66636/-1.48566, where the Bing
> imagery seems reasonably aligned to the gps tracks of the main road, but the
> gpx file for MHW seems to be too far to the north on the cliff area, and too
> far to the south on the area to the east. this beach shelves relatively
> steeply so there is unlikely to be much difference between MHWS & MHWN
>
> 2) Even clearer is an area
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.69439/-1.09414, OSM is much more
> accurate here than the OS Boundary Line
>
> 3) The car park and ice rink here
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.73237/-1.15736 were built sometime
> around 1990, but Boundary line MHW would show these as flooded
>
> 4) More inaccuracies here
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.76650/-1.30029
>
> David
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Colin Smale" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: 11/12/2016 22:17:44
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS
>
> Hi David,
>
> Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like MHW
> should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is however
> possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at the highest
> tides, so it might also be possible that it is strictly correct.
>
> The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the state of
> the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be misleading.
> Even a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is apparently calculated
> over a 19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this though) and things could change
> a lot in that time. As MHW is an average, many tides will of course be
> higher.
>
> The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where
> combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many anomalies
> (admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would definitely suggest
> applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of issue. But I agree, use of
> the OS data would need case-by-case judgements. However I still think the OS
> data is probably a better base to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons
> I mentioned earlier.
>
> Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW?
>
> //colin
>
> [1]
> https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>
>
> On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote:
> I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" is
> has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, but the
> subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag.
>
> Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the coastline
> currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx file does not
> accurately represent MHW.
>
> I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is in
> currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data.
>
> Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an area
> near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary Line data
> seems to be an odd representation of the coastline.
>
> David
> On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of the
> Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be
> significantly better than the PGS data:
>
> * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old
> the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be
> from 2006)
> * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves
> * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above
> MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall)
>
> There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data:
>
> * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary at
> MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data
> * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is
> correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we
> need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the
> correct baseline
> * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level.
> Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops and
> you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line
>
> I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to
> http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ [1] with a file per
> county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the higher-level
> regions or the lower-level constituency areas).
>
> In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I have
> replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks much better (in
> Potlatch) although the changes are not yet showing through on "the map". I
> think coastline changes are processed less frequently.
>
> Any comments?
>
> //colin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Links:
------
[1] http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
