[Talk-GB] OS and OSM
I have been asked by editor of the Cartographic Journal to write a short piece on the effect of the release of OS OpenData on the OpenStreetMap project, and I am just trying to gather my thoughts, and make sure I cover all bases. I was present at Blackadder's Society of Cartographers talk on Why OSM won't be bulk importing OS OpenData and am aware of the work Chris Hill has done on admin boundaries etc. Obviously also aware of the ITO work with OS Locator and what people have done with that. There was work on importing detailed water features, was that Chris as well (goes off to read back through his blog). Can anyone point me to others who have explored the possibilities that OS OpenData provided - PARTICULARLY if they can evidence WHY it is NOT of value to OSM? Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Educational Development Manager Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement Middlesex University phone: 020 8411 5355 email: ste...@mdx.ac.uk http://www.middlesex.wikispaces.net/user/view/steve8 Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ 'Inspire Me!' lunch time showcase on Assessment and Feedback, organised by the Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement http://inspireme.middlesex.wikispaces.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
Hi Steve, I have been asked by editor of the Cartographic Journal to write a short piece on the effect of the release of OS OpenData on the OpenStreetMap project, and I am just trying to gather my thoughts, and make sure I cover all bases. [snip] Not sure how relevant this is but I'd like to offer some pro arguments to certain aspects of OpenData. At the moment I'm working on combining the Vector Map District tile set with footpaths from OSM. Phil Endecott's UK Map App (mobile app doing a similar sort of thing - but no slippy map tileset) looks pretty impressive. I'm also starting work on an augmented reality Android app for walkers, for which I'm planning to use Land-Form Panorama height data. So - even if OS OpenData is not being used directly within the main OSM database - I would say that it provides valuable additional data for OSM-based projects. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
Steve, In Southwark I experimented with bulk importing buildings auto-traced from OS StreetView, but gave up in favour of manually tracing from Bing imagery. I was supplementing both methods with ground surveys. I switched when I approached central London parts of Southwark, where OS StreetView is of such poor quality that it was fairly useless. In central and south Southwark I still think it provides a good first pass, which can be improved by tracing Bing imagery and ground surveys to refine shapes and add addresses. Browse around and judge for yourself. I would also cite the errors we have found in OS Locator as a reason for preferring ground surveys, using the OS product as a tool to indicate possible errors to check out. We found 56 errors in Southwark. Regards, Tom On 11 March 2011 10:19, Steve Chilton s.l.chil...@mdx.ac.uk wrote: I have been asked by editor of the Cartographic Journal to write a short piece on the effect of the release of OS OpenData on the OpenStreetMap project, and I am just trying to gather my thoughts, and make sure I cover all bases. I was present at Blackadder's Society of Cartographers talk on Why OSM won't be bulk importing OS OpenData and am aware of the work Chris Hill has done on admin boundaries etc. Obviously also aware of the ITO work with OS Locator and what people have done with that. There was work on importing detailed water features, was that Chris as well (goes off to read back through his blog). Can anyone point me to others who have explored the possibilities that OS OpenData provided - PARTICULARLY if they can evidence WHY it is NOT of value to OSM? Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Educational Development Manager Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement Middlesex University phone: 020 8411 5355 email: ste...@mdx.ac.uk http://www.middlesex.wikispaces.net/user/view/steve8 Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ 'Inspire Me!' lunch time showcase on Assessment and Feedback, organised by the Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement http://inspireme.middlesex.wikispaces.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On 11/03/11 10:19, Steve Chilton wrote: I have been asked by editor of the Cartographic Journal to write a short piece on the effect of the release of OS OpenData on the OpenStreetMap project, and I am just trying to gather my thoughts, and make sure I cover all bases. I was present at Blackadder's Society of Cartographers talk on Why OSM won't be bulk importing OS OpenData and am aware of the work Chris Hill has done on admin boundaries etc. Obviously also aware of the ITO work with OS Locator and what people have done with that. There was work on importing detailed water features, was that Chris as well (goes off to read back through his blog). Can anyone point me to others who have explored the possibilities that OS OpenData provided - PARTICULARLY if they can evidence WHY it is NOT of value to OSM? OS Opendata gives us access to places we can't otherwise go, such as docks, but so does aerial photography. It provides features such as power lines and some water ways that cross land that we don't have access to. It gives us access to the official, up-to-date boundary data that is just not available in any other form that we can use. It is much more up-to-date than some of the aerials and some of the various forms of data have names on them (Streetview and Locator) though that does have some small level of errors. There is also the postcode dataset which is a valuable source of data that would be very difficult to gather exhaustively otherwise. On the down side the level of detail is low. The building outlines, especially houses, are clearly crude and only indicative. I have been adding buildings and, combined with a survey, addresses and it is useful to use OS Streetview where the aerials are too old to see recent developments or occasionally where buildings are hidden by tree cover, but generally Streetview is not as good as aerials, which themselves are not that detailed in some areas I'm interested in. The VectorMap is (counter to its title) really taken from a render layer. Waterways have annoying gaps where anything crosses them. Woods have somewhat chunky outlines and annoying gaps. StreetView has hints of tracks where the names remain but the track detail has been removed. The alignment of Streetview (against multiple GPS traces) is consistently off in the areas I've used, but that could be the way someone in OSM has used it. Aerials are also off, but not as consistently, which means always checking the alignment before use. Some of the datasets are more useful than others. BoundaryLine is very useful, VectorMap District Settlements by area seem to me to be total rubbish - horribly crude, undefined as to what they show and badly out-of-date. I think OS Opendata has been useful, but it has also attracted the armchair tracer. Much of North and North East Lincolnshire is only in OSM because it has been traced from OS OpenData. All of the detail from a ground survey is missing, yet the map looks quite complete at first glance. According to Jerry's blog ( http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/02/updating-pub-density.html ) Grimsby has no pubs, this because Grimsby has been traced not surveyed. OS OpenData made this possible but it is not directly responsible. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
Tom Chance tom@... writes: Steve, In Southwark I experimented with bulk importing buildings auto-traced from OS StreetView, but gave up in favour of manually tracing from Bing imagery. In fairness you should mention that the Bing imagery was not available at the time of the original OpenData release. It's clear that the simplified Street View building shapes are inferior to high-res aerial photos that Bing has let us use. But back when we only had the low-res Yahoo photos, the Street View building shapes were very useful and typically superior to the early OSM building tracing efforts. You mentioned errors in OS Locator, and it does indeed have some, but typically fewer errors than a single-pass ground survey (this based on my experience rechecking mismatches across London). It is great to do a ground survey and then use OS Locator to check for mistakes, but it would be equally possible to populate names from OS Locator and then do a ground survey to check for mistakes. The total amount of work involved is the same, but by kick-starting from the OS data you get to the 90% mark faster, even though the final 10% takes time. Again, I would re-iterate that the OS Locator names usually have a lower error rate than OSM ground surveys, so I would have more confidence in a street name populated from OS only than in one that had been found on the ground but not checked against OS. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
Chris Hill osm@... writes: Much of North and North East Lincolnshire is only in OSM because it has been traced from OS OpenData. Opinions differ about whether this makes OS OpenData a good thing or a bad thing. Personally I am delighted that people have been able to quickly boost OSM's coverage from 'nothing' to 'basic' in these areas, and provided a base for further mapping. But then, I am an incrementalist kind of mapper and I almost always work by refining and adding detail to areas already partly complete. Opinions also differ about whether having basic coverage in an area, rather than a blank sheet, attracts OSM users and contributors or drives them away. This too usually depends on the way an individual contributor prefers to work. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: It is great to do a ground survey and then use OS Locator to check for mistakes, but it would be equally possible to populate names from OS Locator and then do a ground survey to check for mistakes. Rhhhttt - that's not exactly an interesting day out for most people. Of course, the worse a job you make of armchair mapping (and boy am I sick to the back teeth of cleaning up the mess left by armchair mappers) the more useful the ground survey. The total amount of work involved is the same, but by kick-starting from the OS data you get to the 90% mark faster, even though the final 10% takes time. Again, I would re-iterate that the OS Locator names usually have a lower error rate than OSM ground surveys, so I would have more confidence in a street name populated from OS only than in one that had been found on the ground but not checked against OS. Great. An OSM database filled with only OS data is a) at very best, only as accurate as OS data and b) a massive disincentive to people to go out mapping. I really don't understand why you keep arguing against the sequence of a) send some mappers out then b) use OS as a check for the minority of mistakes. Doing it your way leads to vast areas with names filled out and nothing else. If I could find a way to stop you from damaging our community in this way, and damaging the long-term prospects for the OSM project, then I would. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
Tom I am sure the overall message is going to be ground survey wins. I am a get-out-and-map-it person but see a place for some of this data within that process. Case studies like this are part of the evidence for why this is the case. But also want to reflect more views than just my own. Thanks for response Cheers STEVE From: Tom Chance [mailto:t...@acrewoods.net] Sent: 11 March 2011 11:00 To: Steve Chilton Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM Steve, In Southwark I experimented with bulk importing buildings auto-traced from OS StreetView, but gave up in favour of manually tracing from Bing imagery. I was supplementing both methods with ground surveys. I switched when I approached central London parts of Southwark, where OS StreetView is of such poor quality that it was fairly useless. In central and south Southwark I still think it provides a good first pass, which can be improved by tracing Bing imagery and ground surveys to refine shapes and add addresses. Browse around and judge for yourself. I would also cite the errors we have found in OS Locator as a reason for preferring ground surveys, using the OS product as a tool to indicate possible errors to check out. We found 56 errors in Southwark. Regards, Tom On 11 March 2011 10:19, Steve Chilton s.l.chil...@mdx.ac.ukmailto:s.l.chil...@mdx.ac.uk wrote: I have been asked by editor of the Cartographic Journal to write a short piece on the effect of the release of OS OpenData on the OpenStreetMap project, and I am just trying to gather my thoughts, and make sure I cover all bases. I was present at Blackadder's Society of Cartographers talk on Why OSM won't be bulk importing OS OpenData and am aware of the work Chris Hill has done on admin boundaries etc. Obviously also aware of the ITO work with OS Locator and what people have done with that. There was work on importing detailed water features, was that Chris as well (goes off to read back through his blog). Can anyone point me to others who have explored the possibilities that OS OpenData provided - PARTICULARLY if they can evidence WHY it is NOT of value to OSM? Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Educational Development Manager Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement Middlesex University phone: 020 8411 5355 email: ste...@mdx.ac.ukmailto:ste...@mdx.ac.uk http://www.middlesex.wikispaces.net/user/view/steve8 Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ 'Inspire Me!' lunch time showcase on Assessment and Feedback, organised by the Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement http://inspireme.middlesex.wikispaces.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On 11/03/2011 12:59, Ed Avis wrote: It's clear that the simplified Street View building shapes are inferior to high-res aerial photos that Bing has let us use. But only with older buildings. OS SV is much more upto date with new version being issued every 6 months (?). Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS, OSM and field boundaries
Although the OS has at last been forced into releasing some data we have paid for, it is still withholding field boundaries (as per OS 1:25k). These are invaluable for footpath walkers in agricultural areas (i.e. most of England and parts of Scotland and Wales) even though inevitably out-of-date (and the poor registration between the rights of way GIS layer and the base mapping can all too often leave you backtracking after walking a few hundred metres on the wrong side of the hedge!). Clearly most boundaries cannot readily be surveyed on the ground by OSM workers (short of triangulation) although satellite mapping is a big help where licence-free and clear enough. (Nick and others - thanks for the great work). Sadly I still cannot really use OSM for footpath walking away from conurbations. On a smart phone the zoom limitations make the OS 1:25k mapping of limited use (although Multimaps' OS version is better). Google satellite mapping is often too dark to read out of doors (and tiles cannot be downloaded for outdoor use because of Google's fair usage terms - as I have learned the hard way after having my IP address blocked by Google for 24 hours!); Google Maps is of little use out of town. What is needed in OSM for walkers - but how to do it? (thanks to Nick and others for great work) is (a) contours and (b) field boundaries. Mike On 11/03/2011 12:00, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest... Today's Topics: 1. OS and OSM (Steve Chilton) 2. Re: OS and OSM (Nick Whitelegg) 3. Re: OS and OSM (Tom Chance) 4. Re: OS and OSM (Chris Hill) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Steve Chilton s.l.chil...@mdx.ac.uk wrote: I have been asked by editor of the Cartographic Journal to write a short piece on the effect of the release of OS OpenData on the OpenStreetMap project, and I am just trying to gather my thoughts, and make sure I cover all bases. This isn't quite what you are looking for perhaps, but my main overriding thought on OS OpenData is that it would be almost impossible for the OS to give OSM so many benefits without helping anyone else. For all the kinds of data that OSM excels at - road centrelines, parks, footpaths, names etc, the OpenData can be a great assistance as part of our toolchains - helping us spot mistakes and omissions and so on. But all the products that cover these areas are pretty much useless in of themselves - the StreetView map is pretty dreadful to use, the vector products are all chopped-up features only suitable for rendering with the same scales and feature widths as the raster maps they have been intended for. So there's almost no chance that someone can build interesting and exciting things on top of these products without replicating all the work we're doing in OSM. As for the things we can't collect easily - boundaries, post codes and so on, these datasets are functionally complete, but were never going to compete with OSM. I think if I'd been asked to decide what to release with the aim of improving OSM while making sure its not undermined, I doubt I could have done a better job. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
Andy Allan gravitystorm@... writes: It is great to do a ground survey and then use OS Locator to check for mistakes, but it would be equally possible to populate names from OS Locator and then do a ground survey to check for mistakes. Rhhhttt - that's not exactly an interesting day out for most people. Walking round collecting street names. That is how I started in OSM and it is still today the core of my mapping activity. (Although these days, a typical 'noname hunt' ends up with mostly building names and POIs mapped, most of the unnamed streets having turned out to be service roads or footways. But I do try to walk along them all on foot.) Great. An OSM database filled with only OS data is a) at very best, only as accurate as OS data and b) a massive disincentive to people to go out mapping. As I've mentioned this 'complete disincentive' is opinion, not fact, and for me personally it's an opinion I do not agree with. I have found the OS data invaluable for provoking further mapping expeditions and refinement of areas which, until the OpenData release, had appeared to be complete. (They weren't.) For example, at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.548234lon=-0.157174zoom=18layers=M OS Street View showed some extra roads which weren't mapped. I traced in the roads and then walked along each one finding building names and other features. In the end, they turned out to be un-named service roads, but it was useful to revisit the area to check it in more detail. I really don't understand why you keep arguing against the sequence of a) send some mappers out then b) use OS as a check for the minority of mistakes. I don't argue against that at all, I think it's great. But in fact that is not the classical OSM way, which has been (a) armchair trace from Yahoo imagery then (b) send out the mappers to find street names and other stuff. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS, OSM and field boundaries
Mike Harris wrote: What is needed in OSM for walkers - but how to do it? (thanks to Nick and others for great work) is (a) contours and (b) field boundaries. Contours (nominally at 1:50,000) are included in OS OpenData. Regards, Phil. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On 11/03/2011 10:19, Steve Chilton wrote: I have been asked by editor of the Cartographic Journal to write a short piece on the effect of the release of OS OpenData on the OpenStreetMap project, and I am just trying to gather my thoughts, and make sure I cover all bases. I was present at Blackadder's Society of Cartographers talk on Why OSM won't be bulk importing OS OpenData and am aware of the work Chris Hill has done on admin boundaries etc. Obviously also aware of the ITO work with OS Locator and what people have done with that. There was work on importing detailed water features, was that Chris as well (goes off to read back through his blog). Can anyone point me to others who have explored the possibilities that OS OpenData provided - PARTICULARLY if they can evidence WHY it is NOT of value to OSM? C I agree with what Chris Hill says. Also, I find it extremely disappointing you're writing a piece of blatantly bias copy. OS SV is very useful for referencing names recent urban additions. IMO the *vast* majority of problems that came from bulk importing arose due to the incompetence of the importers, *not* the value of the data. If the imports are done in reasonably sizes chunks then *checked* afterwards they bring value to the OSM database. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS, OSM and field boundaries
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Field boundaries can be traced from Bing? A lot of work though. Depends on how many mappers we have ;-) When we find out how to treble the number of people mapping in the UK, most of our external-dataset-needs would disappear. And in my area it looks like of all the people who signed up and got as far as picking their home location, less than a third have ever mapped... I think we can divide things into things that are actually impossible for us to map and things that only seem impossible given the number of mappers we have and for the second lot (which includes field boundaries) work on increasing the community rather than chasing datasets. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On 11/03/2011 13:31, Ed Avis wrote: I don't argue against that at all, I think it's great. But in fact that is not the classical OSM way, which has been (a) armchair trace from Yahoo imagery then (b) send out the mappers to find street names and other stuff. (adopts tone from the four Yorkshiremen sketch) You had Yahoo Imagery? Luxury! Round where I live there was one GPS trace (leading from a motorway junction to a pub) and some B roads badly traced from NPE. The Yahoo imagery is barely enough to tell you what county you're in. Cheers, Yet Another Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS, OSM and field boundaries
On 11/03/2011 13:42, Steve Doerr wrote: Field boundaries can be traced from Bing? A lot of work though. Contours can be done using the same method as Cycle Map. Field boundaries can be traced in this way, with the caveat that 10 years can be long time in terms of field boundaries (certainly what I've seen of the Bing data locally seems to derives from getmapping's Millennium Map and dates to the early 2000s. Still often better than the OS though... I've certainly used Bing to fill in field boundaries locally, based mostly on what I can see from footpaths and roads. The sun angle of the coverage locally is quite low enabling you to tell hedges and fences apart in 90% of cases. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On 11/03/2011 13:39, Dave F. wrote: IMO the *vast* majority of problems that came from bulk importing arose due to the incompetence of the importers, *not* the value of the data. If the imports are done in reasonably sizes chunks then *checked* afterwards they bring value to the OSM database. A halfway house between bulk imports and ignoring OS OpenData entirely would be providing background images in the editors. I don't see why this shouldn't be done for pretty much all the OS data sets. (I admit, though, that I have no idea of the technical complexity that would be involved.) -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: On 11/03/2011 13:39, Dave F. wrote: IMO the *vast* majority of problems that came from bulk importing arose due to the incompetence of the importers, *not* the value of the data. If the imports are done in reasonably sizes chunks then *checked* afterwards they bring value to the OSM database. A halfway house between bulk imports and ignoring OS OpenData entirely would be providing background images in the editors. I don't see why this shouldn't be done for pretty much all the OS data sets. (I admit, though, that I have no idea of the technical complexity that would be involved.) We've got OS StreetView and the ITO Locator layer in Potlatch2 already, and they are very useful. I'd expect some of the vector products when the p2 vector background handling is more mature. Are there any in particular you were thinking of? Cheers, Andy PS There's lots of out-of-copyright layers in Potlatch2 too, but that's not what we're discussing. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
Steve wrote: I sort of have a feeling Code-Point Open would be useful, but I can't immediately say why. Can I point you at a couple of prior posts to this list? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-January/010652 .html (announcing a way of using them) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-February/01090 1.html (announcing they'd been used) Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On 11/03/2011 16:55, Ed Loach wrote: Steve wrote: I sort of have a feeling Code-Point Open would be useful, but I can't immediately say why. Can I point you at a couple of prior posts to this list? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-January/010652 .html (announcing a way of using them) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-February/01090 1.html (announcing they'd been used) Thanks, Ed. I look forward to this facility reaching DA and ME postcode areas. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 10000 scale withdrawn
andynbe...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder what will happen to OS streetview when the 1 scale mapping is withdrawn in 2 years time. The 1 is being replaced by VectorMap local under the Public Sector Mapping Agreement. Streetview is described as one of the styles of VectorMap Local: https://www.ordnancesurveyvectormap.com/meetingYourRequirements/ Styles Black and White, Streetview, 1:10 000 Scale Raster, Standard Style 1, Standard Style 2, Standard Style 3 What that means in terms of open availability I don't know. Phil. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM
On 11/03/2011 21:33, Chris Hill wrote: Steve, I created the codepoint overlay. Do you want me to add the DA and ME postcode areas? I only added the areas that people ask for to keep the load down. Hi, Chris! Yes, I'd love you to, but that only obscures the point I was originally making, which is that, given an automated process and an adequate infrastructure, this and all the other relevant OS data sets could have been available to *all* UK mappers by now - not just those who (a) know how to do it themselves or (b) know whom to ask! Incidentally, I thought I read that Nominatim were implementing CodePoint Open, and even thought I'd seen it in action, but it's not there now: was I mistaken? -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
