Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
On 31/12/2012 21:59, Graham Jones wrote: I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same reason as you. I think the main reason that there are not many in there, is that they are very difficult to survey. I second that! See my diary entry http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jpsa/diary/17738 for the issues I had mapping fields round here. -- Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
My main motivation for getting involved with OSM was to get a better walking map on my garmin. To this extent I have been adding lots of barriers in the southern part of the Peak District. So it is being done. Whilst it is time consuming I wouldn't say it is difficult. I do survey with a GPS and camera as much as possible, mainly on foot. It can be difficult to determine the type of barrier from satellite imagery so having pictures to refer to makes it easier. JOSM supports photo mapping really well. You do need to check GPS tracks against the imagery and be prepared to adjust the imagery offset. I wouldn't get overly concerned about the accuracy of the position of the barrier. A fairly good job can be done with the existing tools available and people can always adjust as these improve. I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default. Please give barrier mapping a go as we are out there. Dudley Sent from my iPad On 31 Dec 2012, at 22:00, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same reason as you. I think the main reason that there are not many in there, is that they are very difficult to survey. I have just added them from memory when I have been able to remember enough - it is more realistic to add them now that we have high resolution Bing imagery for countryside areas, but it is a lot of work, even from an armchair. Graham. On 31 December 2012 21:17, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM but as per the Wiki this is a complicated area: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use_and_areas_of_natural_land I mapped a small area with landuse and some fences months ago but refrained from doing anymore because not many others appear to be doing it. You can see what I did here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.72508907318115lon=-1.7569917440414429zoom=17 Some of this I need to fix, it was my early days of OSM editing. I would love to use OSM one day as a replacement for Explorer (25K) maps but until things like walls/fences are shown it would be hard to do. My idea was to use the OSM to produce some walking guides in printed or static form but they would need this data added for those areas. I know everyones view is different but do others on here use the landuse and barrier=fence tags in the same way or does it make it look too complicated. Steven ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
I guess it depends on what you think is 'difficult' - to actually survey them means a lot of walking, so I tend to only add the ones that I can remember when I get home, and get the routes from Bing. I have just had another look and for dry stone walls, it is quite easy to distinguish some in Bing images, which lends itself to armchair mapping, but it depends on the direction of the sun - I feel I need the shadow to be confident that it is a wall I am looking at and not a track. But a reasonable guess that there is a feature there is probably more use than a sheet full of nothingness...so I have just spent 20 mins with bing imagery adding walls to a hillside that I know has lots of walls on it, and I had started adding quite a few from my last visit ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.74429lon=-2.09388zoom=16layers=M). The suspicious gaps are where I can not tell/remember if there is a fence to replace the apparently disappeared wall Wire fences of course are much harder to spot I'll look for the errors next time I am there and correct them... Graham. On 1 January 2013 11:15, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: My main motivation for getting involved with OSM was to get a better walking map on my garmin. To this extent I have been adding lots of barriers in the southern part of the Peak District. So it is being done. Whilst it is time consuming I wouldn't say it is difficult. I do survey with a GPS and camera as much as possible, mainly on foot. It can be difficult to determine the type of barrier from satellite imagery so having pictures to refer to makes it easier. JOSM supports photo mapping really well. You do need to check GPS tracks against the imagery and be prepared to adjust the imagery offset. I wouldn't get overly concerned about the accuracy of the position of the barrier. A fairly good job can be done with the existing tools available and people can always adjust as these improve. I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default. Please give barrier mapping a go as we are out there. Dudley Sent from my iPad On 31 Dec 2012, at 22:00, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same reason as you. I think the main reason that there are not many in there, is that they are very difficult to survey. I have just added them from memory when I have been able to remember enough - it is more realistic to add them now that we have high resolution Bing imagery for countryside areas, but it is a lot of work, even from an armchair. Graham. On 31 December 2012 21:17, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM but as per the Wiki this is a complicated area: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use_and_areas_of_natural_land I mapped a small area with landuse and some fences months ago but refrained from doing anymore because not many others appear to be doing it. You can see what I did here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.72508907318115lon=-1.7569917440414429zoom=17 Some of this I need to fix, it was my early days of OSM editing. I would love to use OSM one day as a replacement for Explorer (25K) maps but until things like walls/fences are shown it would be hard to do. My idea was to use the OSM to produce some walking guides in printed or static form but they would need this data added for those areas. I know everyones view is different but do others on here use the landuse and barrier=fence tags in the same way or does it make it look too complicated. Steven ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Good job there Graham. I know most of the area around there quite well. The Bing imagery is old, it still shows the cement works which was demolished in 2005 I think. Compare it to Google and you can see it is there no more. Although you can't use Google Satellite view to trace there is surely no harm in looking at it in another window to help identify if something is a wall or a fence then jumping back to Bing imagery to fill in, maybe that isn't allowed but you aren't drawing it from Google maps. You can see several of the bits you missed because you were unsure are clearly walls. Something I have been considering doing on walks is a timelapse using my GoPro, setting it to take pictures every few seconds which would aid in identifying later. The battery doesn't last long so it could only be used for an hour or so but I will give that a go next time. It has a wide POV so captures quite a lot. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.comwrote: I guess it depends on what you think is 'difficult' - to actually survey them means a lot of walking, so I tend to only add the ones that I can remember when I get home, and get the routes from Bing. I have just had another look and for dry stone walls, it is quite easy to distinguish some in Bing images, which lends itself to armchair mapping, but it depends on the direction of the sun - I feel I need the shadow to be confident that it is a wall I am looking at and not a track. But a reasonable guess that there is a feature there is probably more use than a sheet full of nothingness...so I have just spent 20 mins with bing imagery adding walls to a hillside that I know has lots of walls on it, and I had started adding quite a few from my last visit ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.74429lon=-2.09388zoom=16layers=M). The suspicious gaps are where I can not tell/remember if there is a fence to replace the apparently disappeared wall Wire fences of course are much harder to spot I'll look for the errors next time I am there and correct them... Graham. On 1 January 2013 11:15, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: My main motivation for getting involved with OSM was to get a better walking map on my garmin. To this extent I have been adding lots of barriers in the southern part of the Peak District. So it is being done. Whilst it is time consuming I wouldn't say it is difficult. I do survey with a GPS and camera as much as possible, mainly on foot. It can be difficult to determine the type of barrier from satellite imagery so having pictures to refer to makes it easier. JOSM supports photo mapping really well. You do need to check GPS tracks against the imagery and be prepared to adjust the imagery offset. I wouldn't get overly concerned about the accuracy of the position of the barrier. A fairly good job can be done with the existing tools available and people can always adjust as these improve. I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default. Please give barrier mapping a go as we are out there. Dudley Sent from my iPad On 31 Dec 2012, at 22:00, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same reason as you. I think the main reason that there are not many in there, is that they are very difficult to survey. I have just added them from memory when I have been able to remember enough - it is more realistic to add them now that we have high resolution Bing imagery for countryside areas, but it is a lot of work, even from an armchair. Graham. On 31 December 2012 21:17, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM but as per the Wiki this is a complicated area: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use_and_areas_of_natural_land I mapped a small area with landuse and some fences months ago but refrained from doing anymore because not many others appear to be doing it. You can see what I did here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.72508907318115lon=-1.7569917440414429zoom=17 Some of this I need to fix, it was my early days of OSM editing. I would love to use OSM one day as a replacement for Explorer (25K) maps but until things like walls/fences are shown it would be hard to do. My idea was to use the OSM to produce some walking guides in printed or static form but they would need this data added for those areas. I know everyones view is different but do others on here use the landuse and barrier=fence tags in the same way or does it make it look too complicated. Steven ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK.
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Thanks Steven, I am pretty sure that any reference to Google maps/imagery is not allowed (it would be worth searching through the mail archives for last time it was discussed). You are right though about the age of the Bing imagery - I noticed that the cement works is still there in the photos. I think I tagged it as 'Former' and used landuse=brownfield, which was the best I could think of for what is there now. Just proves the benefit of real surveys rather than just tracing from the photos! Graham. On 1 January 2013 14:44, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: Good job there Graham. I know most of the area around there quite well. The Bing imagery is old, it still shows the cement works which was demolished in 2005 I think. Compare it to Google and you can see it is there no more. Although you can't use Google Satellite view to trace there is surely no harm in looking at it in another window to help identify if something is a wall or a fence then jumping back to Bing imagery to fill in, maybe that isn't allowed but you aren't drawing it from Google maps. You can see several of the bits you missed because you were unsure are clearly walls. Something I have been considering doing on walks is a timelapse using my GoPro, setting it to take pictures every few seconds which would aid in identifying later. The battery doesn't last long so it could only be used for an hour or so but I will give that a go next time. It has a wide POV so captures quite a lot. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.comwrote: I guess it depends on what you think is 'difficult' - to actually survey them means a lot of walking, so I tend to only add the ones that I can remember when I get home, and get the routes from Bing. I have just had another look and for dry stone walls, it is quite easy to distinguish some in Bing images, which lends itself to armchair mapping, but it depends on the direction of the sun - I feel I need the shadow to be confident that it is a wall I am looking at and not a track. But a reasonable guess that there is a feature there is probably more use than a sheet full of nothingness...so I have just spent 20 mins with bing imagery adding walls to a hillside that I know has lots of walls on it, and I had started adding quite a few from my last visit ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.74429lon=-2.09388zoom=16layers=M). The suspicious gaps are where I can not tell/remember if there is a fence to replace the apparently disappeared wall Wire fences of course are much harder to spot I'll look for the errors next time I am there and correct them... Graham. On 1 January 2013 11:15, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: My main motivation for getting involved with OSM was to get a better walking map on my garmin. To this extent I have been adding lots of barriers in the southern part of the Peak District. So it is being done. Whilst it is time consuming I wouldn't say it is difficult. I do survey with a GPS and camera as much as possible, mainly on foot. It can be difficult to determine the type of barrier from satellite imagery so having pictures to refer to makes it easier. JOSM supports photo mapping really well. You do need to check GPS tracks against the imagery and be prepared to adjust the imagery offset. I wouldn't get overly concerned about the accuracy of the position of the barrier. A fairly good job can be done with the existing tools available and people can always adjust as these improve. I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default. Please give barrier mapping a go as we are out there. Dudley Sent from my iPad On 31 Dec 2012, at 22:00, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same reason as you. I think the main reason that there are not many in there, is that they are very difficult to survey. I have just added them from memory when I have been able to remember enough - it is more realistic to add them now that we have high resolution Bing imagery for countryside areas, but it is a lot of work, even from an armchair. Graham. On 31 December 2012 21:17, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.comwrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM but as per the Wiki this is a complicated area: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use_and_areas_of_natural_land I mapped a small area with landuse and some fences months ago but refrained from doing anymore because not many others appear to be doing it. You can see what I did here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.72508907318115lon=-1.7569917440414429zoom=17 Some of this I need to fix, it was my early days of OSM editing. I would love to use OSM one day as a replacement for
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
I have been adding lots of landuse data in south east London as part of a few projects (see recent posts tagged http://tom.acrewoods.net/tag/openstreetmap/). Adding farmland fields, hedges, fences and footpaths is really valuable. The same goes for accurate landuse mapping in cities. I would ignore the open questions on that wiki page, the only one I consider to be open is the question of sharing nodes which comes down to personal preference. As with all other mapping, there's lots you can glean from armchair mapping with Bing imagery but at some stage every area needs a field survey to verify your tracing and fill in the gaps. You can't possibly get the relationship between field boundaries, barriers and their gaps / stiles / gates, footpaths and the rest correct just from Bing imagery and out-of-copyright OS maps. You also can't cross-reference with in-copyright imagery (e.g. Google) or maps to help you along the way. Regards, Tom On 1 January 2013 14:44, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: Good job there Graham. I know most of the area around there quite well. The Bing imagery is old, it still shows the cement works which was demolished in 2005 I think. Compare it to Google and you can see it is there no more. Although you can't use Google Satellite view to trace there is surely no harm in looking at it in another window to help identify if something is a wall or a fence then jumping back to Bing imagery to fill in, maybe that isn't allowed but you aren't drawing it from Google maps. You can see several of the bits you missed because you were unsure are clearly walls. Something I have been considering doing on walks is a timelapse using my GoPro, setting it to take pictures every few seconds which would aid in identifying later. The battery doesn't last long so it could only be used for an hour or so but I will give that a go next time. It has a wide POV so captures quite a lot. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.comwrote: I guess it depends on what you think is 'difficult' - to actually survey them means a lot of walking, so I tend to only add the ones that I can remember when I get home, and get the routes from Bing. I have just had another look and for dry stone walls, it is quite easy to distinguish some in Bing images, which lends itself to armchair mapping, but it depends on the direction of the sun - I feel I need the shadow to be confident that it is a wall I am looking at and not a track. But a reasonable guess that there is a feature there is probably more use than a sheet full of nothingness...so I have just spent 20 mins with bing imagery adding walls to a hillside that I know has lots of walls on it, and I had started adding quite a few from my last visit ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.74429lon=-2.09388zoom=16layers=M). The suspicious gaps are where I can not tell/remember if there is a fence to replace the apparently disappeared wall Wire fences of course are much harder to spot I'll look for the errors next time I am there and correct them... Graham. On 1 January 2013 11:15, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: My main motivation for getting involved with OSM was to get a better walking map on my garmin. To this extent I have been adding lots of barriers in the southern part of the Peak District. So it is being done. Whilst it is time consuming I wouldn't say it is difficult. I do survey with a GPS and camera as much as possible, mainly on foot. It can be difficult to determine the type of barrier from satellite imagery so having pictures to refer to makes it easier. JOSM supports photo mapping really well. You do need to check GPS tracks against the imagery and be prepared to adjust the imagery offset. I wouldn't get overly concerned about the accuracy of the position of the barrier. A fairly good job can be done with the existing tools available and people can always adjust as these improve. I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default. Please give barrier mapping a go as we are out there. Dudley Sent from my iPad On 31 Dec 2012, at 22:00, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same reason as you. I think the main reason that there are not many in there, is that they are very difficult to survey. I have just added them from memory when I have been able to remember enough - it is more realistic to add them now that we have high resolution Bing imagery for countryside areas, but it is a lot of work, even from an armchair. Graham. On 31 December 2012 21:17, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.comwrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM but as per the Wiki this is a complicated area:
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
On 01/01/13 11:15, Dudley Ibbett wrote: I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default. +1 Smothering the countryside with landuse when it's farmland seems well over the top to me. Marking a single field surrounded by urban or a village setting seems a good idea, but just making everything in the countryside that isn't woods, water, scrub, wetland, etc etc as farmland or fields seems distracting. Adding a named farmyard however is a very good landmark. Please give barrier mapping a go as we are out there. +1 Barriers are really useful countryside mapping. They are good landmarks and distinguishing fences, walls and hedges is very helpful. Breaks or gates etc help show where RoW go, adding a barrier alongside a RoW makes it plain where to go too, which might be less obvious in one direction than in the other. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fwd: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
I have been using prow:ref, just because I came across it in the mailing lists. I have not added many (~60 prows) and I don't mind converting those over to prow_ref if that is the consensus. My preference would be for prow:ref, as the colon is the 'standard' way to define namespaces, and I am not convinced that prow_ref is not just a namespaced tag. It is using the prow_ prefix to distinguish the prow object from the way object. 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one additional tag that occurs to me is prow:operator (or prow:authority), to describe the local authority the references 'belong' to. 2/ source:prow_ref doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that source:prow:ref has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.) I was just using source:ref, without really thinking about it. Taginfo has only 2 uses of source:prow:ref, which makes me feel better. There are examples of this pattern, in source:hgv:national_network (67 k) and source:addr:postcode (17 k). I agree source:prow:ref looks ugly, but I am not clear what is ambiguous about it? 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather than the alternative colon separated versions. This seems like an appeal to popularity; one could point to tree:ref or some other *:ref. Craig On 31 December 2012 22:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have been the better option. Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons: 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. 2/ source:prow_ref doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that source:prow:ref has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.) 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather than the alternative colon separated versions. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Marking landuse and field boundaries
On 1 January 2013 16:10, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: On 01/01/13 11:15, Dudley Ibbett wrote: I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland. To me if it isn't mapped it is farmland. It would seem a reasonable default. +1 Smothering the countryside with landuse when it's farmland seems well over the top to me. Marking a single field surrounded by urban or a village setting seems a good idea, but just making everything in the countryside that isn't woods, water, scrub, wetland, etc etc as farmland or fields seems distracting. I must disagree. Leaving an area unmapped leaves its nature completely unknown. You might as well say unmapped land in cities must be residential land so leave it unmapped, yet we map it because it is useful. It may seem obvious to somebody looking at a web map, panning around an area they know to be complete. But that isn't the only use of OpenStreetMap data, and we have no way of knowing whether an area is in fact complete. I have been making maps of natural spaces in London, and it is nice to show farmland (even if much of it is of dubious natural value). Should I be forced to compute the gaps in land cover, ignore strips between land uses and work out for myself where the farmland is, assuming that any area unmapped fits the description? Mapping it as farmland needn't distract anybody - it can remain unrendered, for example. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Find myself more or less agreeing with the points Chris and Dudley made. I see see farmland as a default, and haven't put any effort into mapping farmland or fields. But I also agree with Tom's point, it is information that has a place in the database, and you dont need to render it if you dont want to. I feel the mapping of barriers (hedges, walls, fences) are of fundamental part of useful countryside mapping. Now that we have fairly good imagery of rural areas I've started to add hedge lines and fences. I think it's very important to indicate the source as Bing. A significant help would be to have the 'main' mapnik map start rendering rural boundaries at zoom 14. Currently the map only starts showing fences/hedges at zoom 16 which is a little bit too late. The main map renders a boundary between fields at zoom 14 so I assume the change wouldn't create problems. How would I go about asking for a change to that? Here's an example where not rendering of barriers make things confusing. Zoom in 1 level to see the field edges. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.46370267868042lon=-3.6121607666zoom=15 I know of organisation/people that wanted to use our mapnik map to show routes but where put off because the map didn't render field boundaries at at a useful zoom. They weren't passionate enough about OSM to start rendering their own maps. There's an issue regarding whether we should add the barrier tag to the same area tagged as landuse, or even use them with areas *Firstly* if two fields are created sharing one side and each area has barrier=fence does it mean there are two fences along the shared side. *Secondly* it appears several of the barriers can also be an area. So if you create a field area with landuse=farm, then add barrier=wall/hedge/fence/etc the the whole of the field area is considered a wall/hedge/fence/etc ?. You can see this as rendering issue here for hedges. zoom in a bit and the hedges are rendered over the fields and not along the edge. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.46370267868042lon=-3.6121607666zoom=15 The 'main' mapnik map ignores 'area' when rendering wall fences, but we still need to consider if what should be the correct approach. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Tom Chance wrote: Mapping it as farmland needn't distract anybody apart from the poor sod editing the data, that is. yours from the sticks Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Marking-landuse-and-field-boundaries-tp5742119p5742180.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
On 1 January 2013 18:39, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: As I said above (you must have missed it) marking fields within urban areas is a good idea as you been doing. The contrast with the surroundings is valuable and is not smothering thousands of square kilometres with pointless polygons that add no value. I hadn't missed that comment, in fact my work takes me up to the boundary of Greater London which includes quite a lot of green belt farmland so I have started to add that in. If I were to move to Shropshire I might equally be interested to look at the land uses in one of England's most rural counties, and I wouldn't want to assume that the presence of some fences meant all landuses except farmland had been mapped. I cannot understand why you would leap from the belief that it is of no value to me to the conclusion that it is of no value to anybody. I also cannot understand comments such as Richard's, which arise every time somebody wants to add additional data that they consider valuable. Compared to the days of just mapping roads, many cities today are a dense mass of addressed buildings, metadata-to-the-eyeballs roads and every amenity known to man. Should we pity the poor sod who tries to edit that? One of the fun things about OpenStreetMap is seeing interesting uses others have made of data I would never have considered interesting. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Tom Chance wrote: I also cannot understand comments such as Richard's, which arise every time somebody wants to add additional data that they consider valuable. Compared to the days of just mapping roads, many cities today are a dense mass of addressed buildings, metadata-to-the- eyeballs roads and every amenity known to man. Should we pity the poor sod who tries to edit that? Yes, we should, and I do. To quote Christian Quest on talk@ just a few minutes ago: After trying to contaminate a couple of friends with the OSM virus, the biggest problem I think we have comes from the complexity of the editors (even P2) multiplied by the growing data density. The growing amount of data makes editing looking more difficult and newcomers are afraid of breaking existing stuff. Already, if you zoom all the way into a densely mapped part of London and click 'Edit', you will either boggle your browser or wait an unacceptably long time for the data to load - simply because there is so much stuff there. Or if you go into a part of the countryside where the roads are comingled with admin boundaries plus landuse and a hefty sprinkling of long-distance foot and cycle routes on top, you will be forever tripping over yourself with shared nodes, accidental junctions, layer ordering and heaven knows what. There are possible things that can be done in the editor software to address these but they are seriously bloody hard (believe me, I've spent a couple of years worrying about them), and no-one is lining up to code them. In reality, the majority of editor-developer time in the past few years has gone towards broadly reimplementing the same tool in a succession of languages, or to providing ever more advanced features for the advanced users. Which is why I pity the poor sodding newbies. Complex tagging abstractions and dense data are making OSM editing harder every month, and the tools/API aren't keeping up. If you don't believe me, hang out in #osm-gb some time and follow the newbies' first edit notifier: people are seriously floundering right now. The excellent UI work that Mapbox are putting into iD will go a long way towards addressing this, but it can't solve the entire problem - no client can. Personally I'm coming to suspect that something layer-like in API 0.7 is the only way past this, much though our traditional pride against accepting anything invented by GIS people might make it hard to swallow. And, as with editors, we're not exactly swimming in developers in this area. Until then, the advanced mappers must share in OSM's collective responsibility to keep the project editable by newbies. That's why I believe widespread farm landuse mapping in the countryside is an actively harmful indulgence. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Marking-landuse-and-field-boundaries-tp5742119p5742192.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
While I agree that high data density is an issue, I can't see why this is a strong argument for not tagging land use in rural areas, as even if we do draw big polygons to distinguish farmed land from woodland from moors from scree slopes etc, these areas are so big that it doesn't make rural data that much more complicated, and it will still be much much simpler than a major city centre. Unless of course we are talking about drawing a polygon for each individual field, which would seem excessive - I am just thinking of a polygon for the general area. Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
On 1 Jan 2013 20:34, Richard Fairhurst richard@systeme... Until then, the advanced mappers must share in OSM's collective responsibility to keep the project editable by newbies. That's why I believe widespread farm landuse mapping in the countryside is an actively harmful indulgence. Couldn't disagree more. Editing complexity is an urban problem. Even with farming landuse added rural editing has got to be an order of magnitude easier than editing a dense city centre. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
On 1 January 2013 16:30, Craig Loftus craiglof...@gmail.com wrote: 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one additional tag that occurs to me is prow:operator (or prow:authority), to describe the local authority the references 'belong' to. I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the way resides in. Apart from something like prow:type (for which we already have the established designation=* tag) nothing else springs to mind as being Rights of Way specific. If anything else is found, I don't see a problem in having a later proposal to introduce a set of prow:* tags and in the process change from prow_ref to prow:ref. So I don't think it's necessary to use prow:ref just in case at this stage. I agree source:prow:ref looks ugly, but I am not clear what is ambiguous about it? Is it the source for prow:ref or is it a ref value somehow relating to a source:prow namespace? Granted this particular tag is probably not likely to be mis-interpreted, so this is only a very weak reason. Ugliness was my main concern here. (The subtle issue is using using : for both namespaces and recording sources, which have slightly different semantics, but it's too late to do anything about this in OSM now I fear.) 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather than the alternative colon separated versions. This seems like an appeal to popularity; one could point to tree:ref or some other *:ref. There's a difference between appealing to popularity on a non-established tag where numbers are likely to be decided by a small number of mappers who happen to have chosen one over another for a variety of reasons, some of which may just be copying any other instance they found. As opposed to looking at well-established tags (and patterns of tags) which are widely used and would now be very difficult to change. If you look at the numbers of uses in taginfo, you'll see that *_ref is much more widely used than *:ref. For example, there are only four *:ref keys with over 10k instances, and two of them are source:ref (or a derivative thereof), which is arguably different. There are 15 different keys for *_ref with over 10k uses. Anyway, that's more of an explanation of why I think prow_ref would be preferable. If other uses are found for a prow namespace I might be convinced to change my mind. We do need to settle on one tag to use though, and I'll be happy to go with whatever consensus emerges. I'd suggest we ask the others who have been making use of either prow_ref or prow:ref (or even just ref=*, as I did originally) on Rights of Way for their opinions and their reasons for choosing the one they did. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
