Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Small Heath Station: Rendering bug?

[Richard Mann]

Try drawing the platforms as areas. They probably ought to be areas
anyway (especially given how wide they are).

Mapnik has known problems respecting layers, and quite a lot of
renderers routinely draw areas under lines, so you're asking for
trouble.

Richard

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> Reported as ticket 3573:
>
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3573
>
> On 9 March 2011 11:54, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>  wrote:
>> That's a bug
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andy
>>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Andy Mabbett [mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk]
>>>Sent: 09 March 2011 11:44 AM
>>>To: talk-gb-westmidlands
>>>Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Small Heath Station: Rendering bug?
>>>
>>>Before I raise a bug ticket, can someone please check my tagging for Small
>>>Heath Railway Station:
>>>
>>>     http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.463403&lon=-
>>>1.859191&zoom=18&layers=M
>>>
>>>The building which straddles the two platforms is tagged layer:1, but is
>> being
>>>rendered beneath the platforms, which have no layer.
>>>
>>>(The tracks there need better alignment; I'll turn to that later).
>>>
>>>--
>>>Andy Mabbett
>>>@pigsonthewing
>>>http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>>
>>>___
>>>Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>>>talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org
>>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No virus found in this message.
>>>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3492 - Release Date: 03/08/11
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Small Heath Station: Rendering bug?

[Andy Mabbett]

Reported as ticket 3573:

http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3573

On 9 March 2011 11:54, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
 wrote:
> That's a bug
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Andy Mabbett [mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk]
>>Sent: 09 March 2011 11:44 AM
>>To: talk-gb-westmidlands
>>Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Small Heath Station: Rendering bug?
>>
>>Before I raise a bug ticket, can someone please check my tagging for Small
>>Heath Railway Station:
>>
>>     http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.463403&lon=-
>>1.859191&zoom=18&layers=M
>>
>>The building which straddles the two platforms is tagged layer:1, but is
> being
>>rendered beneath the platforms, which have no layer.
>>
>>(The tracks there need better alignment; I'll turn to that later).
>>
>>--
>>Andy Mabbett
>>@pigsonthewing
>>http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>>___
>>Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>>talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>No virus found in this message.
>>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3492 - Release Date: 03/08/11
>
>
>



-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Chris Hill]

On 09/03/11 13:33, Michael Collinson wrote:
Certainly both Chris' and Phillip's cautions are certainly true but 
I've paid particular attention to the River Wharfe mid-reaches, which 
I know very well and flows in a well-defined channel with high banks 
and  has not shifted markedly in the last 40 years. In places, it is 
almost twice as wide as it should be. 
You have put your finger on the solution here Mike - local involvement. 
Aerial images and OS data used as an extra by someone who knows the area 
is the best way to resolve any inconsistencies. Importing data, OS or 
not, without tempering it with local knowledge or surveys is usually a 
bad idea.
Chris may be right in suggesting that the highest water mark is being 
mapped, but why map the 10 - 25-year flood event level rather than the 
natural bank line? 
I was thinking more of the high tides that occur about once a month on 
say the Humber or the Yorkshire Ouse and the spates that occur on rivers 
like the Swale whenever there is moderately heavy rain.
I am tempted to think that automated software has been used which like 
PGS coastlines occasionally gets confused by nearby lineaments. I also 
recall comparing with digitised 25:000 maps (vintage 1900 - 1960 
surveying) and noticing that it correlates much more closely with Bing 
than StreetView. Needs more analysis but be aware!

Analysis by a local is, to me, the gold standard.


Mike


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pub meetup in Fulham tomorrow evening, reminder

[Grant Slater]

On 9 March 2011 17:03, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Andrew  writes:
>
>>The meetup tomorrow evening (8th March)
>
> You mean tomorrow, Thursday 10th March?

Yes it is tomorrow, Thursday 10th March.

Details here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London/Winter_2010-2011_Pub_Meetup

/ Grant

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pub meetup in Fulham tomorrow evening, reminder

[Ed Avis]

Andrew  writes:

>The meetup tomorrow evening (8th March)

You mean tomorrow, Thursday 10th March?

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Michael Collinson]

Jason, Yes, I'll try to do this over the weekend. Give me an off-line 
poke if I forget.


Mike


At 14:45 09/03/2011, Jason Cunningham wrote:

Hi Mike,

Can you provide us with a grid ref(s) for a location where the OS 
data is wrong


Jason

On 9 March 2011 13:33, Michael Collinson 
<m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote:

At 13:29 09/03/2011, Chris Hill wrote:
On 09/03/11 11:57, Michael Collinson wrote:
At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote:
>Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
>To: Peter Miller
>Cc: Talk GB
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?
>
>On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote:
>> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
>> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge
>> cleanup' at the same time.
>
>This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers) and
keen to
>contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
reasonable
>approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
(bridges
>etc) with OSM data?

+1

If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional
data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from
survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset.


A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing 
Bing imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's 
riverbanks derived from OS data indicates that very frequently  the 
OS are not tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water 
(clear river channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the 
riverbank or where the rough "verge" meets pasture land.


A further word of caution: Bing and all other imagery only shows a 
snapshot of the way things are, often many years ago, and in an 
indeterminate state of water level. Some rivers have tidal 
influences, some rivers have very different levels in flood or 
drought. Sometimes where the rough "verge" meets pasture land is the 
highest point the water reaches regularly, but still only occasionally.



Certainly both Chris' and Phillip's cautions are certainly true but 
I've paid particular attention to the River Wharfe mid-reaches, 
which I know very well and flows in a well-defined channel with high 
banks and  has not shifted markedly in the last 40 years. In places, 
it is almost twice as wide as it should be. Chris may be right in 
suggesting that the highest water mark is being mapped, but why map 
the 10 - 25-year flood event level rather than the natural bank 
line? I am tempted to think that automated software has been used 
which like PGS coastlines occasionally gets confused by nearby 
lineaments. I also recall comparing with digitised 25:000 maps 
(vintage 1900 - 1960 surveying) and noticing that it correlates much 
more closely with Bing than StreetView. Needs more analysis but be aware!


Mike




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Loch Lomond National Park sorry for 'Giro Bay' map

[Ed Avis]

These maps will probably become collector's items:


-- 
Ed Avis 


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Jason Cunningham]

Hi Mike,

Can you provide us with a grid ref(s) for a location where the OS data is
wrong

Jason

On 9 March 2011 13:33, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> At 13:29 09/03/2011, Chris Hill wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/11 11:57, Michael Collinson wrote:
>>
>>> At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>>>
 Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote:
 >Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
 >To: Peter Miller
 >Cc: Talk GB
 >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when
 mapping?
 >
 >On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote:
 >> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
 >> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge
 >> cleanup' at the same time.
 >
 >This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers)
 and
 keen to
 >contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
 reasonable
 >approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
 (bridges
 >etc) with OSM data?

 +1

 If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional
 data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from
 survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset.

>>>
>>> A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing Bing
>>> imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's riverbanks derived
>>> from OS data indicates that very frequently  the OS are not tracing the
>>> riverbank as the dividing line between water (clear river channel) and land
>>> (grass, scrub) but the top of the riverbank or where the rough "verge" meets
>>> pasture land.
>>>
>> A further word of caution: Bing and all other imagery only shows a
>> snapshot of the way things are, often many years ago, and in an
>> indeterminate state of water level. Some rivers have tidal influences, some
>> rivers have very different levels in flood or drought. Sometimes where the
>> rough "verge" meets pasture land is the highest point the water reaches
>> regularly, but still only occasionally.
>>
>
> Certainly both Chris' and Phillip's cautions are certainly true but I've
> paid particular attention to the River Wharfe mid-reaches, which I know very
> well and flows in a well-defined channel with high banks and  has not
> shifted markedly in the last 40 years. In places, it is almost twice as wide
> as it should be. Chris may be right in suggesting that the highest water
> mark is being mapped, but why map the 10 - 25-year flood event level rather
> than the natural bank line? I am tempted to think that automated software
> has been used which like PGS coastlines occasionally gets confused by nearby
> lineaments. I also recall comparing with digitised 25:000 maps (vintage 1900
> - 1960 surveying) and noticing that it correlates much more closely with
> Bing than StreetView. Needs more analysis but be aware!
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Michael Collinson]

At 13:29 09/03/2011, Chris Hill wrote:

On 09/03/11 11:57, Michael Collinson wrote:

At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:

Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote:
>Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
>To: Peter Miller
>Cc: Talk GB
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District 
when mapping?

>
>On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote:
>> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
>> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge
>> cleanup' at the same time.
>
>This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers) and
keen to
>contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
reasonable
>approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
(bridges
>etc) with OSM data?

+1

If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional
data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from
survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset.


A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing 
Bing imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's 
riverbanks derived from OS data indicates that very frequently  the 
OS are not tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water 
(clear river channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the 
riverbank or where the rough "verge" meets pasture land.
A further word of caution: Bing and all other imagery only shows a 
snapshot of the way things are, often many years ago, and in an 
indeterminate state of water level. Some rivers have tidal 
influences, some rivers have very different levels in flood or 
drought. Sometimes where the rough "verge" meets pasture land is the 
highest point the water reaches regularly, but still only occasionally.


Certainly both Chris' and Phillip's cautions are certainly true but 
I've paid particular attention to the River Wharfe mid-reaches, which 
I know very well and flows in a well-defined channel with high banks 
and  has not shifted markedly in the last 40 years. In places, it is 
almost twice as wide as it should be. Chris may be right in 
suggesting that the highest water mark is being mapped, but why map 
the 10 - 25-year flood event level rather than the natural bank line? 
I am tempted to think that automated software has been used which 
like PGS coastlines occasionally gets confused by nearby lineaments. 
I also recall comparing with digitised 25:000 maps (vintage 1900 - 
1960 surveying) and noticing that it correlates much more closely 
with Bing than StreetView. Needs more analysis but be aware!


Mike



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Pub meetup in Fulham tomorrow evening, reminder

[Andrew]

The meetup tomorrow evening (8th March) will be at the So Bar (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.48012&mlon=-0.1923&zoom=16 ) in Fulham 
Road opposite the entrance to Stamford Bridge football ground (there will not 
be a match on).

See you there.
--
Andrew




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 09/03/2011 11:57, Michael Collinson wrote:

At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:

Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote:
>Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
>To: Peter Miller
>Cc: Talk GB
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when 
mapping?

>
>On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote:
>> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
>> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge
>> cleanup' at the same time.
>
>This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers) 
and

keen to
>contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
reasonable
>approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
(bridges
>etc) with OSM data?

+1

If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional
data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from
survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset.


A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing Bing 
imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's riverbanks 
derived from OS data indicates that very frequently  the OS are not 
tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water (clear river 
channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the riverbank or where 
the rough "verge" meets pasture land.


Mike

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Interesting point Mike.

There are similar issues about tracing from imagery or using Vector Map 
District when doing other waterbodies: reservoirs are the ones which 
immediately come to mind. Often the landward side of the splash zone is 
more obvious than the usual water level, and if that is used for mapping 
it gives a false impression. Patches of riparian scrub and marsh also 
seem to be treated inconsistently by the OS (perhaps aerial interpretation).


Most larger rivers will have flood-level gauges (right word?) which 
might be some kind of aid for choosing a 'natural' level to map, but 
sourcing then is not straightforward. I've only done a bit of mapping by 
wandering around in wellies with one foot on dry land and the other in 
the water.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Chris Hill]

On 09/03/11 11:57, Michael Collinson wrote:

At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:

Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote:
>Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
>To: Peter Miller
>Cc: Talk GB
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when 
mapping?

>
>On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote:
>> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
>> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge
>> cleanup' at the same time.
>
>This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers) 
and

keen to
>contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
reasonable
>approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
(bridges
>etc) with OSM data?

+1

If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional
data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from
survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset.


A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing Bing 
imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's riverbanks 
derived from OS data indicates that very frequently  the OS are not 
tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water (clear river 
channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the riverbank or where 
the rough "verge" meets pasture land.
A further word of caution: Bing and all other imagery only shows a 
snapshot of the way things are, often many years ago, and in an 
indeterminate state of water level. Some rivers have tidal influences, 
some rivers have very different levels in flood or drought. Sometimes 
where the rough "verge" meets pasture land is the highest point the 
water reaches regularly, but still only occasionally.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Barnett, Phillip]

I don't think you can infer OS methodology from comparison of OS and Bing 
photographs of rivers. Rivers are not static objects - they move laterally over 
time, unless confined by concrete, in towns etc. In the countryside they will 
migrate backwards and forwards by possibly many hundreds of metres over a few 
decades. Compare parish boundaries with Bing imagery, you'll see inexplicable 
bulges in the line, where they diverge from rivers, and then rejoin downstream.





PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?

-Original Message-
From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz]
Sent: 09 March 2011 11:57
To: 'Talk GB'
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote:
> >Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
> >To: Peter Miller
> >Cc: Talk GB
> >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?
> >
> >On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote:
> >> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
> >> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge
> >> cleanup' at the same time.
> >
> >This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers) and
>keen to
> >contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
>reasonable
> >approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
>(bridges
> >etc) with OSM data?
>
>+1
>
>If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional
>data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from
>survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset.

A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing Bing
imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's riverbanks
derived from OS data indicates that very frequently  the OS are not
tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water (clear river
channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the riverbank or
where the rough "verge" meets pasture land.

Mike


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Michael Collinson]

At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:

Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote:
>Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
>To: Peter Miller
>Cc: Talk GB
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?
>
>On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote:
>> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
>> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge
>> cleanup' at the same time.
>
>This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers) and
keen to
>contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
reasonable
>approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
(bridges
>etc) with OSM data?

+1

If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional
data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from
survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset.


A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing Bing 
imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's riverbanks 
derived from OS data indicates that very frequently  the OS are not 
tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water (clear river 
channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the riverbank or 
where the rough "verge" meets pasture land.


Mike 



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Nottingham Pub Meet-up last night

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

We had a well attended meeting last night with 8 of us. A good mix, of 
active local mappers, old hands (smsm1 ;-) ), relative newcomers and 
interested map lurkers. There was enough enthusiasm to do it again, and 
a general view that a monthly was fine, so I'll suggest a time & place 
for early April soon.


A representative of Pedals came along, and I got the impression that 
he'll recommend stronger backing from them for OSM and CycleStreets. I 
was very pleased to link up with a high profile local advocacy group.


Marcus, David (Pedals) and Laura (lolkins) all emphasised that they 
would feel more comfortable editing if there was an opportunity for some 
guidance. Marcus represented the Nottingham Hackspace which I didn't 
even know existed, and suggested their space near Nottingham Station 
might be a good venue for a mapping party/training event. This obviously 
has great potential.


So more successful than I hoped by far, and lots to think about too.

I'll write up something more detailed on my blog.

Thanks to everyone who came. See you all soon!

Jerry

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb