On 9 August 2017 at 18:13, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote:
> I have a rather strange explanation as to why Forestry Commission land is
> not shown on the OS Open Greenspace dataset. OS Customer Services have
> explained that they can't distinguish what woodland is Forestry Commission
> from aerial imagery nor can they determine what the access is from such
> imagery. This seems ridiculous but that is their answer.
I suspect that producing the Green Space map was forced upon OS by
politicians, so they've just taken whatever existing datasets they
have, and looked for polygon features that map to "Green Space" and
exported them. (Hence the odd choice to include Golf Courses, which
are mostly private.) Around me, the OS Green Space coverage is
particularly poor with a lot of the public green space in my town
missing. Much of the missing land in the town is owned by the District
Council, but there are also bits that are CRoW Access Land and
registered commons, which I'd have thought OS should know about. And
then there's the whole of Thetford Forest missing!
> I think it still has some value as it stands.
Definitively. I've already found a couple of play areas hidden in
housing estates that I didn't know existed, that I'll need to go a
The killer feature would be doing a comparison with the OSM data and
showing discrepancies -- though that's much easier said than done!
> Any more feedback will always be welcome.
Would you consider adding the CRoW Access Land as an additional layer?
(You can get the data under the OGL from
http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/catalogue/#/catalogue under the
heading "CRoW Act 2000 - Access Layer".
If you're interested in adding even more datasets, the National Trust
has OGL data of it's "always open" land at
, and the Forestry Commission make their Public Forest Estate
boundaries available under the OGL at
(though there isn't public access to all of it). In both of these
datasets there will be overlap with the CRoW Access Land.
Talk-GB mailing list