On 29 May 2012 16:05, Richard Mann wrote:
> I think Peter was planning on making the ITO boundaries available as a
> traceable layer, but haven't heard anything about this recently.
>
You are right. It should be possibly to use ITO Map tiles in Potlatch and
JOSM, however there seems to be glitch at present which we will take a look
at over the next few days and get back to you on this list.
You will probably also be aware that updates for ITO Map have also pretty
much failed since the planet dumps disappeared at the start of April with
the license change. We had initially understood that planet would be down
for about two week and planned to sit it out, however given the protracted
nature of the changeover we are now working hard on a fix that can be used
with the current files and will get us back to daily updates.
Regards,
Peter
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Tom Chance wrote:
>
>> On 29 May 2012 15:44, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>>> My questions to the community:
>>> 1) Would a bulk upload of any or all of this data be interesting?
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for raising this, it would be great to get a more complete set of
>> boundaries. In answer to your first question, no, please don't follow a
>> bulk upload approach. I say this for two reasons:
>>
>> 1) Most boundaries follow existing features like roads, rivers, etc. They
>> need to be manually entered as relations sharing nodes with those features.
>> In my experience this is often a nice opportunity to spot other problems
>> with very old features using aerial imagery and GPS tracks, e.g. poor
>> alignment, or complicated junctions that aren't fully modelled for routing.
>> So much better done manually than by dumping a load of new ways into the
>> database.
>>
>> 2) Many boundaries already exist, but are often slightly incorrect, e.g.
>> not sharing nodes with existing features but being a little offset. By
>> doing this manually you can improve these as you go, especially since every
>> boundary shares its properties with one or more other boundaries.
>>
>> The best approach would be to identify which boundaries are missing, put
>> those up in a list and and encourage people to get us to 100%. Perhaps
>> start with counties, then unitaries and districts, then even wards.
>>
>> ITO have a nice map of boundaries that people can use to check up on
>> them, you can see I started to add wards in Southwark:
>> http://www.itoworld.com/map/2
>>
>
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>>
>> ___
>> 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
