Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Mike Harris]

Not sure I entirely agree ...

1. Many of the public rights of way drawn on OS maps - especially in upland
areas - are approximations done by someone sitting at a desk - so the GPS
work on the ground is invaluable. Even the lines on the definitive maps are
often approximations drawn by a desk worker with a ruler rather than by
someone in the field.

2. Having said that, the line in the definitive statement (and the
definitive map if not contradictory to the statement) is usually the legal
right of way (until altered by a DMMO) - even if it's nuts.

3. Wouldn't have so much faith in landowners - many of them don't really
know where the rights of way lie until there is an issue (so many problems
arise from sloppy conveyancing survey practices and people tend to believe
their solicitors (;>). The Highway Authority holds the definitive map and
statement. Both are open on request to public inspection and are
authoritative - whatever the landowner may say! (again - even if nuts!).

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) 
> [mailto:ajrli...@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: 30 September 2009 09:52
> To: 'Dave F.'
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
> 
> Dave F. wrote:
> >Sent: 24 September 2009 6:36 PM
> >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
> >
> >Mike Harris wrote:
> >> Dave makes a good point - the most important thing for walkers in 
> >> farmed rural areas is often to know on which side of the hedge / 
> >> fence they
> >ought
> >> to be. OS 1:25k is fairly useless for this as the 
> difference between 
> >> one side of the hedge and the other is usually less than the 
> >> registration
> >error
> >> between the OS overlays for public rights of way and the base map! 
> >> Larger scale OS does not afaik show public rights of way 
> as such - just 'paths'
> >and
> >> 'tracks'. So OSM can offer something here.
> >>
> >> I will try to record fence / hedge stubs more often - 
> especially when 
> >> I
> >note
> >> that they do not agree with OS mapping!
> >>
> >> Mike Harris
> >>
> >>
> >I've always been disappointed with the quality of the OD 
> 1:25k. These 
> >are now all digitally stored yet the printed versions look 
> like they've 
> >been drawn with swan quills.
> >
> >I've never understood why they used thicker linestyles to represent 
> >paths than the 1:50k's . It just blocks out detail underneath it.
> >
> 
> Many a time I have descended from the fells using OS 1:25k 
> and compass only to find the bearing was wrong because the 
> footpath on the OS map has been poorly drawn. And this 
> situation is unlikely to change because the OS has no 
> surveying capacity to update this aspect of their mapping and 
> it's not something that can always be reliably adjusted from 
> aerial photography.
> 
> You will generally find that the older 1:25k maps are better 
> than current day ones. Although the old maps don't have 
> public rights of way they do show many of the footpaths that 
> later became public rights of way. On the old maps they are 
> drawn more finely so its much easier to see where they were 
> originally surveyed [1]. May help in some cases work out 
> where a path goes when its not clear on the ground although 
> the best way to address that issue is by asking the 
> landowner. They normally now precisely and are probably a 
> better source of info than the local authority. 
> 
> Having said that there are still paths on the old maps that 
> appear to be drawn on a boundary rather than to one side of it.
> 
> [1] for an example see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/a/a9/Portland_snip001.png
>  (bottom half of image)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Emilie Laffray]

2009/9/30 Dave F. 

> Emilie Laffray wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2009/9/30 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) > ajrli...@googlemail.com>>
>>
>>Whoooh! That’s a bit ancient. With a modern high sensitivity
>>receiver you
>>should be generally around 5m of error and certainly not more than
>>10m if
>>you are in sight or an SBAS Egnos/Wass satellite and your GPS can
>>use it.
>>
>>
>> Yup, this is the precision that you are going to get in average nowadays.
>>
>> Emilie Laffray
>>
>
> Sorry, Andy & Emilie, that some of us can't afford the latest super-dooper
> latest offerings of receivers.
>
> Maybe you'd like to subsidies those of us who are 'so last year'?
>

Before I subsidize you, I should consider subsidizing myself first. I don't
have a GPS that can track. I only have a GPS for my digital camera to geotag
pictures that fits on the hot shoe of my camera.
Making a statement that current receivers have this precision doesn't mean
that we are pushing everyone to upgrade their GPS.

Emilie Laffray
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Dave F.]

Emilie Laffray wrote:
>
>
> 2009/9/30 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)  >
>
> Whoooh! That’s a bit ancient. With a modern high sensitivity
> receiver you
> should be generally around 5m of error and certainly not more than
> 10m if
> you are in sight or an SBAS Egnos/Wass satellite and your GPS can
> use it.
>
>
> Yup, this is the precision that you are going to get in average nowadays.
>
> Emilie Laffray

Sorry, Andy & Emilie, that some of us can't afford the latest 
super-dooper latest offerings of receivers.

Maybe you'd like to subsidies those of us who are 'so last year'?

Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Emilie Laffray]

2009/9/30 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) 

> Whoooh! That’s a bit ancient. With a modern high sensitivity receiver you
> should be generally around 5m of error and certainly not more than 10m if
> you are in sight or an SBAS Egnos/Wass satellite and your GPS can use it.
>

Yup, this is the precision that you are going to get in average nowadays.

Emilie Laffray
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Peter Childs]

2009/9/30 Dave F. :
> Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>>
>> Or better still, train dogs to walk only under hedges and fit them with a
>> GPS :-)
>>
>>
>
> What tag should we use for territorial pissings? ;)
>

I think that would have to be an admin_level=11 or maybe 12.

Peter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Dave F.]

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> Or better still, train dogs to walk only under hedges and fit them with a
> GPS :-)
>
>   
What tag should we use for territorial pissings? ;)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Donald Allwright]

>Or better still, train dogs to walk only under hedges and fit them with a
>GPS :-)

I can't help thinking that this would open up a whole new genre of 
geographical-based games, ranging from geocaching (where did I hide that bone?) 
and orienteering to canine endurance records (my dog walked 100 miles in 24 
hours, and here's the proof - 30092009.gpx). Having said that, you would 
presumably get gaps in the trace whenever the dog goes down a rabbit-hole that 
would require some interpolation when they come back out of a different exit!

Donald



  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Dave F. wrote:
>Sent: 29 September 2009 10:29 PM
>To: Peter Childs
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
>
>Peter Childs wrote:
>> 2009/9/28 Mark Williams :
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> courtland.yoc...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been thinking a bit about this from a very different perspective -
>that of parks and other open public areas where you might not have a chance
>to walk the perimeter ... for instance, you've a dog who really doesn't
>want that boring walk around the edge, but bobs and weaves all about the
>space and this might be one of only a couple of potential visits you might
>be able to make to the site.  I think that an accumulation of unordered
>points over time either by one person or multiple people who capture GPS
>information _incidentally_ would be useful in defining the core of the
>public (or private, in the case of tractors on farmland) space.  There's no
>need to gather tracks, merely points.  Let the accumulation of points
>define the space.  This is something of a corollary to the notion of
>"wisdom of the crowd" and it can be seen in action in the United States on
>major thoroughfares, such as the interstate highways, where the
>accumulation of multiple tracks over time can be u
>>>>
>>> sed to define a way.
>>>
>>>> user id on openstreemap = ceyockey
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>> If I'm out walking with the dogs, I tend to not go near the edge UNLESS
>>> I'm mapping, because they won't crawl under hedges if I'm already a fair
>>> way off, but will do so happily if it doesn't take them far. I suspect
>>> I'm not the only one, so you'd end up with a ludicrously fat hedge.
>>>
>>> I also tend not to go into corners & will often stop a little before the
>>> end of a field.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a case of "Better to have a park with a ludicrously
>> fat hedge than no hedge, or field at all. With average GPS only giving
>> an accuracy of around 10-50 meters its not going to be far out anyway.
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>I wouldn't be such as slave to your GPS.
>We all know of the apocryphal stories of GPS slaves who drive off  cliff
>faces.
>
>Just because you didn't walk to the corner doesn't mean you didn't
>survey it.
>If you're aware that the hedge isn't actually fat then don't map it as
>such, do it as you saw it.
>Your eyes are the most important/accurate piece of surveying equipment.
>If your minds not to hot though, take a camera/paper/pen.
>
>If  fields boundaries are straight, I rarely walk the whole perimeter,
>just parts of those boundaries & extrapolate.
>
>Either that, or train you dogs to do as you order :-)

Or better still, train dogs to walk only under hedges and fit them with a
GPS :-)

Cheers

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Peter Childs wrote:
>Sent: 28 September 2009 3:42 PM
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
>
>2009/9/28 Mark Williams :
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> courtland.yoc...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> I've been thinking a bit about this from a very different perspective -
>that of parks and other open public areas where you might not have a chance
>to walk the perimeter ... for instance, you've a dog who really doesn't
>want that boring walk around the edge, but bobs and weaves all about the
>space and this might be one of only a couple of potential visits you might
>be able to make to the site.  I think that an accumulation of unordered
>points over time either by one person or multiple people who capture GPS
>information _incidentally_ would be useful in defining the core of the
>public (or private, in the case of tractors on farmland) space.  There's no
>need to gather tracks, merely points.  Let the accumulation of points
>define the space.  This is something of a corollary to the notion of
>"wisdom of the crowd" and it can be seen in action in the United States on
>major thoroughfares, such as the interstate highways, where the
>accumulation of multiple tracks over time can be u
>> sed to define a way.
>>>
>>> user id on openstreemap = ceyockey
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> If I'm out walking with the dogs, I tend to not go near the edge UNLESS
>> I'm mapping, because they won't crawl under hedges if I'm already a fair
>> way off, but will do so happily if it doesn't take them far. I suspect
>> I'm not the only one, so you'd end up with a ludicrously fat hedge.
>>
>> I also tend not to go into corners & will often stop a little before the
>> end of a field.
>>
>> Mark
>
>I think this is a case of "Better to have a park with a ludicrously
>fat hedge than no hedge, or field at all. With average GPS only giving
>an accuracy of around 10-50 meters its not going to be far out anyway.
>
Whoooh! That’s a bit ancient. With a modern high sensitivity receiver you
should be generally around 5m of error and certainly not more than 10m if
you are in sight or an SBAS Egnos/Wass satellite and your GPS can use it.

Cheers

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Dave F. wrote:
>Sent: 24 September 2009 6:36 PM
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
>
>Mike Harris wrote:
>> Dave makes a good point - the most important thing for walkers in farmed
>> rural areas is often to know on which side of the hedge / fence they
>ought
>> to be. OS 1:25k is fairly useless for this as the difference between one
>> side of the hedge and the other is usually less than the registration
>error
>> between the OS overlays for public rights of way and the base map! Larger
>> scale OS does not afaik show public rights of way as such - just 'paths'
>and
>> 'tracks'. So OSM can offer something here.
>>
>> I will try to record fence / hedge stubs more often - especially when I
>note
>> that they do not agree with OS mapping!
>>
>> Mike Harris
>>
>>
>I've always been disappointed with the quality of the OD 1:25k. These
>are now all digitally stored yet the printed versions look like they've
>been drawn with swan quills.
>
>I've never understood why they used thicker linestyles to represent
>paths than the 1:50k's . It just blocks out detail underneath it.
>

Many a time I have descended from the fells using OS 1:25k and compass only
to find the bearing was wrong because the footpath on the OS map has been
poorly drawn. And this situation is unlikely to change because the OS has no
surveying capacity to update this aspect of their mapping and it's not
something that can always be reliably adjusted from aerial photography.

You will generally find that the older 1:25k maps are better than current
day ones. Although the old maps don't have public rights of way they do show
many of the footpaths that later became public rights of way. On the old
maps they are drawn more finely so its much easier to see where they were
originally surveyed [1]. May help in some cases work out where a path goes
when its not clear on the ground although the best way to address that issue
is by asking the landowner. They normally now precisely and are probably a
better source of info than the local authority. 

Having said that there are still paths on the old maps that appear to be
drawn on a boundary rather than to one side of it.

[1] for an example see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/a/a9/Portland_snip001.png (bottom half
of image)

Cheers

Andy



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>Sent: 24 September 2009 10:30 AM
>To: Mike Harris
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>>OS one-inch (or 1:50k) mapping does not show field boundaries. But is
>anyone working on out-of-copyright 1:25k (or larger scale) mapping?
>
>>Mike Harris
>
>I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in the 3D
>navigation stuff I'm working on.

Correct, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Provisional/First_Edition
for current status.

>I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles btw.

I certainly do.

Cheers

Andy



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Peter Childs]

2009/9/29 Dave F. :
> Peter Childs wrote:
>>
>> 2009/9/28 Mark Williams :
>>
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> courtland.yoc...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>

 I've been thinking a bit about this from a very different perspective -
 that of parks and other open public areas where you might not have a chance
 to walk the perimeter ... for instance, you've a dog who really doesn't 
 want
 that boring walk around the edge, but bobs and weaves all about the space
 and this might be one of only a couple of potential visits you might be 
 able
 to make to the site.  I think that an accumulation of unordered points over
 time either by one person or multiple people who capture GPS information
 _incidentally_ would be useful in defining the core of the public (or
 private, in the case of tractors on farmland) space.  There's no need to
 gather tracks, merely points.  Let the accumulation of points define the
 space.  This is something of a corollary to the notion of "wisdom of the
 crowd" and it can be seen in action in the United States on major
 thoroughfares, such as the interstate highways, where the accumulation of
 multiple tracks over time can be u

>>>
>>> sed to define a way.
>>>

 user id on openstreemap = ceyockey

 

>>>
>>> If I'm out walking with the dogs, I tend to not go near the edge UNLESS
>>> I'm mapping, because they won't crawl under hedges if I'm already a fair
>>> way off, but will do so happily if it doesn't take them far. I suspect
>>> I'm not the only one, so you'd end up with a ludicrously fat hedge.
>>>
>>> I also tend not to go into corners & will often stop a little before the
>>> end of a field.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a case of "Better to have a park with a ludicrously
>> fat hedge than no hedge, or field at all. With average GPS only giving
>> an accuracy of around 10-50 meters its not going to be far out anyway.
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>
> I wouldn't be such as slave to your GPS.
> We all know of the apocryphal stories of GPS slaves who drive off  cliff
> faces.
>
> Just because you didn't walk to the corner doesn't mean you didn't survey
> it.
> If you're aware that the hedge isn't actually fat then don't map it as such,
> do it as you saw it.
> Your eyes are the most important/accurate piece of surveying equipment. If
> your minds not to hot though, take a camera/paper/pen.
>
> If  fields boundaries are straight, I rarely walk the whole perimeter, just
> parts of those boundaries & extrapolate.
>
> Either that, or train you dogs to do as you order :-)
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>

Better still strap the GPS to the Dog and let the Dog do the hard
work, You can then stand in the middle and do the stuff the dog can't.

Alas I don't have a dog and can't stand the animals either..

Peter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Dave F.]

Peter Childs wrote:
> 2009/9/28 Mark Williams :
>   
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> courtland.yoc...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> 
>>> I've been thinking a bit about this from a very different perspective - 
>>> that of parks and other open public areas where you might not have a chance 
>>> to walk the perimeter ... for instance, you've a dog who really doesn't 
>>> want that boring walk around the edge, but bobs and weaves all about the 
>>> space and this might be one of only a couple of potential visits you might 
>>> be able to make to the site.  I think that an accumulation of unordered 
>>> points over time either by one person or multiple people who capture GPS 
>>> information _incidentally_ would be useful in defining the core of the 
>>> public (or private, in the case of tractors on farmland) space.  There's no 
>>> need to gather tracks, merely points.  Let the accumulation of points 
>>> define the space.  This is something of a corollary to the notion of 
>>> "wisdom of the crowd" and it can be seen in action in the United States on 
>>> major thoroughfares, such as the interstate highways, where the 
>>> accumulation of multiple tracks over time can be u
>>>   
>> sed to define a way.
>> 
>>> user id on openstreemap = ceyockey
>>>
>>> 
>>>   
>> If I'm out walking with the dogs, I tend to not go near the edge UNLESS
>> I'm mapping, because they won't crawl under hedges if I'm already a fair
>> way off, but will do so happily if it doesn't take them far. I suspect
>> I'm not the only one, so you'd end up with a ludicrously fat hedge.
>>
>> I also tend not to go into corners & will often stop a little before the
>> end of a field.
>>
>> Mark
>> 
>
> I think this is a case of "Better to have a park with a ludicrously
> fat hedge than no hedge, or field at all. With average GPS only giving
> an accuracy of around 10-50 meters its not going to be far out anyway.
>
> Peter.
>   
I wouldn't be such as slave to your GPS.
We all know of the apocryphal stories of GPS slaves who drive off  cliff 
faces.

Just because you didn't walk to the corner doesn't mean you didn't 
survey it.
If you're aware that the hedge isn't actually fat then don't map it as 
such, do it as you saw it.
Your eyes are the most important/accurate piece of surveying equipment. 
If your minds not to hot though, take a camera/paper/pen.

If  fields boundaries are straight, I rarely walk the whole perimeter, 
just parts of those boundaries & extrapolate.

Either that, or train you dogs to do as you order :-)

Cheers
Dave F.

 




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Peter Childs]

2009/9/28 Mark Williams :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> courtland.yoc...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> I've been thinking a bit about this from a very different perspective - that 
>> of parks and other open public areas where you might not have a chance to 
>> walk the perimeter ... for instance, you've a dog who really doesn't want 
>> that boring walk around the edge, but bobs and weaves all about the space 
>> and this might be one of only a couple of potential visits you might be able 
>> to make to the site.  I think that an accumulation of unordered points over 
>> time either by one person or multiple people who capture GPS information 
>> _incidentally_ would be useful in defining the core of the public (or 
>> private, in the case of tractors on farmland) space.  There's no need to 
>> gather tracks, merely points.  Let the accumulation of points define the 
>> space.  This is something of a corollary to the notion of "wisdom of the 
>> crowd" and it can be seen in action in the United States on major 
>> thoroughfares, such as the interstate highways, where the accumulation of 
>> multiple tracks over time can be u
> sed to define a way.
>>
>> user id on openstreemap = ceyockey
>>
>> 
>
> If I'm out walking with the dogs, I tend to not go near the edge UNLESS
> I'm mapping, because they won't crawl under hedges if I'm already a fair
> way off, but will do so happily if it doesn't take them far. I suspect
> I'm not the only one, so you'd end up with a ludicrously fat hedge.
>
> I also tend not to go into corners & will often stop a little before the
> end of a field.
>
> Mark

I think this is a case of "Better to have a park with a ludicrously
fat hedge than no hedge, or field at all. With average GPS only giving
an accuracy of around 10-50 meters its not going to be far out anyway.

Peter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Mark Williams]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

courtland.yoc...@mindspring.com wrote:
> I've been thinking a bit about this from a very different perspective - that 
> of parks and other open public areas where you might not have a chance to 
> walk the perimeter ... for instance, you've a dog who really doesn't want 
> that boring walk around the edge, but bobs and weaves all about the space and 
> this might be one of only a couple of potential visits you might be able to 
> make to the site.  I think that an accumulation of unordered points over time 
> either by one person or multiple people who capture GPS information 
> _incidentally_ would be useful in defining the core of the public (or 
> private, in the case of tractors on farmland) space.  There's no need to 
> gather tracks, merely points.  Let the accumulation of points define the 
> space.  This is something of a corollary to the notion of "wisdom of the 
> crowd" and it can be seen in action in the United States on major 
> thoroughfares, such as the interstate highways, where the accumulation of 
> multiple tracks over time can be u
sed to define a way.
> 
> user id on openstreemap = ceyockey
> 
> 

If I'm out walking with the dogs, I tend to not go near the edge UNLESS
I'm mapping, because they won't crawl under hedges if I'm already a fair
way off, but will do so happily if it doesn't take them far. I suspect
I'm not the only one, so you'd end up with a ludicrously fat hedge.

I also tend not to go into corners & will often stop a little before the
end of a field.

Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkrAxoYACgkQJfMmcSPNh94G9gCfU2St1qNUvLoqDOhKot61wL3m
d0YAn2k87A7UtutPIyKqmIzrP66ul7jw
=7hsP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Mike Harris]

... At least I don't spend all my time on OSM - sometimes I'm one of those
guys who puts the waymarks in place (sometimes after walking down the wrong
side of the hedge because the by OS 1:25k has a registration error (or
is just plain wrong!). I do always try to orient the waymark with enough
exaggeration to indicate which side of the hedge is going to work! (Straight
ahead is not much use if it points along the hedge!).

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] 
> Sent: 25 September 2009 10:43
> To: Dave F.
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
> 
> >>I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in 
> >>the
> 3D
> >> navigation stuff I'm working on.
> >
> >> I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles
> btw.
> >
> >> Nick
> >>
> >> 
> >We do,
> 
> I know, because I'm one of them ;-)
> 
> >but sometimes that's not quite enough. I had a path that ran 
> parallel 
> >to a hedge but there was no clear indication which side it was on 
> >either on the ground or the OS 1:25k.
> 
> Just to check, and apologies if I'm telling you the complete 
> obvious: make sure that the OS 1:25000 map is not the only 
> evidence you have of which side of the hedge the path goes. 
> Make sure there's some evidence on the ground as well e.g. a 
> way marker. Otherwise if you use that to decide where the 
> path goes it's probably breach of copyright.
> 
> >I went down the wrong side &
> >had to double back.
> 
> It's happened to me before where a way marker tells me I went 
> wrong at the other end. I think I've doubled back once or 
> twice but sometimes haven't bothered because the difference 
> between one side and the other is less than the GPS 
> resolution. It would be more important in these cases to note 
> where the hedge is with respect to the correct course of the path.
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Dave F.]

Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>>> I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in the 
>>>   
> 3D
>   
>>> navigation stuff I'm working on.
>>>   
>>> I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles 
>>>   
> btw.
>   
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> We do,
>> 
>
> I know, because I'm one of them ;-)
>
>   
>> but sometimes that's not quite enough. I had a path that ran 
>> parallel to a hedge but there was no clear indication which side it was 
>> on either on the ground or the OS 1:25k. 
>> 
>
> Just to check, and apologies if I'm telling you the complete obvious: make 
> sure that the OS 1:25000 map is not the only evidence you have of which 
> side of the hedge the path goes. Make sure there's some evidence on the 
> ground as well e.g. a way marker.
In this case it was by trial & error, because, as I said there it wasn't 
clear on the ground or on the map.
The only evidence I found was a kissing gate on my return down the other 
side of the hedge.
>  Otherwise if you use that to decide 
> where the path goes it's probably breach of copyright.
>   
Nick, you bring up a point that needs expanding on, but takes us away 
from Filed Boundaries. To get as many peoples opinion as possible I've 
started a new thread: Breach of Copyright?

Cheers
Dave F.





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Nick Whitelegg]

>>I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in the 
3D
>> navigation stuff I'm working on.
>
>> I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles 
btw.
>
>> Nick
>>
>> 
>We do,

I know, because I'm one of them ;-)

>but sometimes that's not quite enough. I had a path that ran 
>parallel to a hedge but there was no clear indication which side it was 
>on either on the ground or the OS 1:25k. 

Just to check, and apologies if I'm telling you the complete obvious: make 
sure that the OS 1:25000 map is not the only evidence you have of which 
side of the hedge the path goes. Make sure there's some evidence on the 
ground as well e.g. a way marker. Otherwise if you use that to decide 
where the path goes it's probably breach of copyright.

>I went down the wrong side & 
>had to double back.

It's happened to me before where a way marker tells me I went wrong at the 
other end. I think I've doubled back once or twice but sometimes haven't 
bothered because the difference between one side and the other is less 
than the GPS resolution. It would be more important in these cases to note 
where the hedge is with respect to the correct course of the path.

Nick


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Dave F.]

Mike Harris wrote:
> Dave makes a good point - the most important thing for walkers in farmed
> rural areas is often to know on which side of the hedge / fence they ought
> to be. OS 1:25k is fairly useless for this as the difference between one
> side of the hedge and the other is usually less than the registration error
> between the OS overlays for public rights of way and the base map! Larger
> scale OS does not afaik show public rights of way as such - just 'paths' and
> 'tracks'. So OSM can offer something here.
>
> I will try to record fence / hedge stubs more often - especially when I note
> that they do not agree with OS mapping!
>
> Mike Harris
>
>   
I've always been disappointed with the quality of the OD 1:25k. These 
are now all digitally stored yet the printed versions look like they've 
been drawn with swan quills.

I've never understood why they used thicker linestyles to represent 
paths than the 1:50k's . It just blocks out detail underneath it.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Mike Harris]

Dave makes a good point - the most important thing for walkers in farmed
rural areas is often to know on which side of the hedge / fence they ought
to be. OS 1:25k is fairly useless for this as the difference between one
side of the hedge and the other is usually less than the registration error
between the OS overlays for public rights of way and the base map! Larger
scale OS does not afaik show public rights of way as such - just 'paths' and
'tracks'. So OSM can offer something here.

I will try to record fence / hedge stubs more often - especially when I note
that they do not agree with OS mapping!

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] 
> Sent: 24 September 2009 13:18
> To: Nick Whitelegg
> Cc: Mike Harris; talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
> 
> I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great 
> help in the 3D
> > navigation stuff I'm working on.
> >
> > I think most people who map the countryside do map gates 
> and stiles btw.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >   
> We do, but sometimes that's not quite enough. I had a path 
> that ran parallel to a hedge but there was no clear 
> indication which side it was on either on the ground or the 
> OS 1:25k. I went down the wrong side & had to double back.
> 
> In these cases where footpaths cross boundaries/barriers I 
> try to map as much as I can see, even if it's just looks like 
> short stubs on the map. 
> A full set of field layouts would be ideal, but just an 
> indication of where they are when met by a way can be just as useful.
> 
> Good use of the word lacuna, Mike H.
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Mike Harris]

Nick

Sounds great and as if I should be very grateful to Andy R!

As a sort-of 'countryside mapper' I do try to include stiles, kissing gates
(would be nice to have them rendered some time), gates, footbridges, steps,
tracktype - and where relevant to a special path difficulty short sections
of fence/hedge boundary to explain an obstruction or similar - as well as
'designation' (legal status) and 'ref' (path number) where known. I also add
key farmhouses where the name is visible and they are useful for
orientation.

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] 
> Sent: 24 September 2009 10:30
> To: Mike Harris
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
> 
> Hi Mike,
>  
> >OS one-inch (or 1:50k) mapping does not show field boundaries. But is
> anyone working on out-of-copyright 1:25k (or larger scale) mapping?
>  
> >Mike Harris
> 
> I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great 
> help in the 3D navigation stuff I'm working on.
> 
> I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and 
> stiles btw.
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Dave F.]

I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in the 3D
> navigation stuff I'm working on.
>
> I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles btw.
>
> Nick
>
>   
We do, but sometimes that's not quite enough. I had a path that ran 
parallel to a hedge but there was no clear indication which side it was 
on either on the ground or the OS 1:25k. I went down the wrong side & 
had to double back.

In these cases where footpaths cross boundaries/barriers I try to map as 
much as I can see, even if it's just looks like short stubs on the map. 
A full set of field layouts would be ideal, but just an indication of 
where they are when met by a way can be just as useful.

Good use of the word lacuna, Mike H.

Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi Mike,
 
>OS one-inch (or 1:50k) mapping does not show field boundaries. But is 
anyone working on out-of-copyright 1:25k (or larger scale) mapping?
 
>Mike Harris

I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in the 3D 
navigation stuff I'm working on.

I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles btw.

Nick


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Mike Harris]

Right to roam in England and Wales exists only on Open Access Land - which
is most unlikely to be cropped. Elsewhere our rights are only on public
highways (which include public rights of way) or by permission. Where a
public right of way crosses a crop it is likely to be a trespass too go
around the crop (off the right of way) but there is a legal right to walk
through the crop (and a legal duty on the tenant or landowner to reinstate
the right of way through the crop).
 
It would be great to get the field boundary data as in farmed rural areas
this is the most useful means of navigation (other than a GPS!), the
greatest use I make in the field of OS 1:25k mapping and - for me - the
greatest lacuna in OSM! Beyond actual surveying by bearings from points
where I have the right to be (which is always going to be a slow, laborious
and incomplete process) I cannot see a practical solution other than
open-source aerial/satellite photography.
 
OS one-inch (or 1:50k) mapping does not show field boundaries. But is anyone
working on out-of-copyright 1:25k (or larger scale) mapping?
 
Mike Harris
 


  _  

From: Jack Stringer [mailto:jack.ix...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: 23 September 2009 22:07
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries



Well if somone does map the fields please could they put the gates on there.
It would be nice to route people to the nearest gate. We do have the right
to roam but those of who live in the countryside have always had that option
we just used our common sense by not walking down the middle of crops.

I keep thinking there must be a way to get the field data from the farmers
if only it was to sit down and draw from a walking street map.


Jack Stringer




On Sep 23, 2009 2:39 PM, "Ed Avis"  wrote:



Someoneelse  mail.atownsend.org.uk> writes: >>In the UK,
certainly large-scale Ordnance ...

Hmm, perhaps then tracing it from out-of-copyright maps is not such a bad
idea...
Although most likely the one-inch maps currently emerging from copyright do
not
have the field boundaries.


>That doesn't mean >they don't have some other more accurate data in a
format not readily >reprod...

Hmm, where do you see field information on that?


>In areas where there's complete public access (Open Access Land) 

Ah yes, Open Access...
<http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/places/openaccess/>
lets you see these areas superimposed on OS maps, but I didn't see a
place to download the whole data set.  Has anyone asked?

As for adding field boundaries by doing ground surveys, I think this is
too impossibly enormous a task, even for enthusiastic OSM mappers.  Perhaps
we could install GPS devices on every tractor in the country and over a
couple
of years record ploughing patterns, which would let you deduce the shape of
arable fields...

--
Ed Avis 


___ talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org http:/...



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Someoneelse]

Ed Avis wrote:
> Someoneelse  mail.atownsend.org.uk> writes:
> 
>>
>> http://maps.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/
>> NottsCC.InteractiveMapping.Web.Internet/
>> ?e=461177&n=360114&mpp=160&layers=SEA.PLA.FP.BR.RB.BOAT
>> /&hLayer=&hField=&hValue=
>>
>> suggest that they might.
> 
> Hmm, where do you see field information on that?

I just zoomed in to a couple of areas that I knew and verified that the 
black lines (boundaries of one sort or another) matched where I recall 
the field boundaries to be.  I only found one that looked a bit iffy - 
most were surprisingly (to me, given my earlier comment) accurate.

> As for adding field boundaries by doing ground surveys, I think this is
> too impossibly enormous a task, even for enthusiastic OSM mappers.  Perhaps
> we could install GPS devices on every tractor in the country ...

... or every sheep?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Aun Yngve Johnsen]

They record tracks so they can calculate the next leg on the field,  
the question is wether we can use the data for some reason or other.

brgds
Aun Johnsen



On 23/09/2009, at 17:53, Liz wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Ed Avis wrote:
>> Perhaps
>> we could install GPS devices on every tractor in the country
> where I live tractors have GPS devices already
> perhaps you just need to ask if they record where they have been?
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Jack Stringer]

Well if somone does map the fields please could they put the gates on there.
It would be nice to route people to the nearest gate. We do have the right
to roam but those of who live in the countryside have always had that option
we just used our common sense by not walking down the middle of crops.

I keep thinking there must be a way to get the field data from the farmers
if only it was to sit down and draw from a walking street map.

Jack Stringer

On Sep 23, 2009 2:39 PM, "Ed Avis"  wrote:

Someoneelse  mail.atownsend.org.uk> writes: >>In the UK,
certainly large-scale Ordnance ...
Hmm, perhaps then tracing it from out-of-copyright maps is not such a bad
idea...
Although most likely the one-inch maps currently emerging from copyright do
not
have the field boundaries.

>That doesn't mean >they don't have some other more accurate data in a
format not readily >reprod...
Hmm, where do you see field information on that?

>In areas where there's complete public access (Open Access Land)
Ah yes, Open Access...

lets you see these areas superimposed on OS maps, but I didn't see a
place to download the whole data set.  Has anyone asked?

As for adding field boundaries by doing ground surveys, I think this is
too impossibly enormous a task, even for enthusiastic OSM mappers.  Perhaps
we could install GPS devices on every tractor in the country and over a
couple
of years record ploughing patterns, which would let you deduce the shape of
arable fields...

--
Ed Avis 

___ talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org http:/...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Liz]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Ed Avis wrote:
>  Perhaps
> we could install GPS devices on every tractor in the country
where I live tractors have GPS devices already
perhaps you just need to ask if they record where they have been?


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Ed Avis]

Someoneelse  mail.atownsend.org.uk> writes:

>>In the UK, certainly large-scale Ordnance Survey maps show field boundaries.
>
>I suspect that it depends on region, but in my experience the Ordnance 
>Survey field boundary data as printed on their Explorer is based on 
>actual boundaries some considerable time in the past.

Hmm, perhaps then tracing it from out-of-copyright maps is not such a bad 
idea...
Although most likely the one-inch maps currently emerging from copyright do not
have the field boundaries.

>That doesn't mean 
>they don't have some other more accurate data in a format not readily 
>reproduced on a printed map - maps such as this one:
> 
>http://maps.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/
>NottsCC.InteractiveMapping.Web.Internet/
>?e=461177&n=360114&mpp=160&layers=SEA.PLA.FP.BR.RB.BOAT
>/&hLayer=&hField=&hValue=
>
>suggest that they might.

Hmm, where do you see field information on that?

>In areas where there's complete public access (Open Access Land)

Ah yes, Open Access...

lets you see these areas superimposed on OS maps, but I didn't see a
place to download the whole data set.  Has anyone asked?

As for adding field boundaries by doing ground surveys, I think this is
too impossibly enormous a task, even for enthusiastic OSM mappers.  Perhaps
we could install GPS devices on every tractor in the country and over a couple
of years record ploughing patterns, which would let you deduce the shape of
arable fields...

-- 
Ed Avis 





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Someoneelse]

Ed Avis wrote:
> In the UK, certainly large-scale Ordnance Survey maps show field boundaries.

I suspect that it depends on region, but in my experience the Ordnance 
Survey field boundary data as printed on their Explorer is based on 
actual boundaries some considerable time in the past.  That doesn't mean 
they don't have some other more accurate data in a format not readily 
reproduced on a printed map - maps such as this one:

http://maps.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/NottsCC.InteractiveMapping.Web.Internet/?e=461177&n=360114&mpp=160&layers=SEA.PLA.FP.BR.RB.BOAT&hLayer=&hField=&hValue=
suggest that they might.

In areas where there's complete public access (Open Access Land) or 
substantial public access (lots of paths and roads) or very large fields 
with straight edges it might be feasible to add field boundary data 
without too much effort, but failing that it's "do your own aerial 
survey" or actual surveying on the ground (taking bearings from known 
points).  Maybe that's a job for this winter...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Chris Hill]

The OS have their own aerial survey 'plane, currently based in Blackpool 
I think.  A large part of their rural mapping updates comes from this hi 
res photography.  They don't choose to release these photos for general 
use of course.  An OS 'plane used to be based at an airfield I used to 
fly from.

Cheers, Chris

Ed Avis wrote:
> In the UK, certainly large-scale Ordnance Survey maps show field boundaries.
> There is some incomprehensible (to me) information about 'field parcel 
> numbers'
> at .
>
> It would be great to add them to OSM but I don't think walking along the 
> boundary
> of each field with a GPS device is a practical way to do it.  And 
> high-resolution
> aerial photography is unlikely to be available for rural areas.  So I wonder
> where the OS get their data from?
>
>   


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk