Re: [Talk-GB] Vanguard Way - Anyone from the Kent / Sussex border?
There appears to be a user named VanguardWay ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VanguardWay/edits) who has been systematically adding Vanguard Way to all ways along the route, all in mid-September of this year. To their credit, I suppose, they've added it as an extra name with a forward slash rather than replacing any existing names, but clearly the relation is both more correct and far older. On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk wrote: On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:27:31 + Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Although, granted, it's probably recorded incorrectly... Yup, the fact that most/all of the ways have also been tagged with the website for the Vanguard Way is a fairly strong indicator the editor in question hasn't understood how relations work. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vanguard Way - Anyone from the Kent / Sussex border?
(P.S. and as a local, I can confirm that no ways are actually named Vanguard Way on the ground, at least not in the Croydon area) On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:27 AM, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote: There appears to be a user named VanguardWay ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VanguardWay/edits) who has been systematically adding Vanguard Way to all ways along the route, all in mid-September of this year. To their credit, I suppose, they've added it as an extra name with a forward slash rather than replacing any existing names, but clearly the relation is both more correct and far older. On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.ukwrote: On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:27:31 + Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Although, granted, it's probably recorded incorrectly... Yup, the fact that most/all of the ways have also been tagged with the website for the Vanguard Way is a fairly strong indicator the editor in question hasn't understood how relations work. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vanguard Way - Anyone from the Kent / Sussex border?
David Fisher wrote: (P.S. and as a local, I can confirm that no ways are actually named Vanguard Way on the ground, at least not in the Croydon area) Thanks for that. It's something that happens fairly regularly around my patch too - people add the name of the long distance route to the name of the road because they're not familiar with http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=13lat=50.88363lon=0.1946hill=0 and other similar maps, or because it's not easy to find out if there's a relation to add the way to, or because they're new to OSM and have no idea what a relation is yet (which is fair enough - you wouldn't teach someone learning a foreign language all the irregular verbs first). Perhaps someone (or more than one) could get in touch with them with a bit of an explanation? It looks like the Vanguard Way website uses OS maps, and the ways that form part of it in OSM haven't all been surveyed for e.g. surface, gates and stiles, and that sort of thing. Someone will then have to do a bit of a tidy, including removing the name and website from all those footpaths and roads where it doesn't really belong. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Andrew Hain wrote: Is there a useful distinction between the two 1:25000 layers? In the area that I was looking at (just south of Kirk Ireton in Derbyshire) they appear to be different original maps, and it appears that coverage of each layer is slightly different. On the subject of the other layers, has anyone ever used e.g. Bartholomew 1/2 inch as a background layer? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Rob Nickerson wrote: 2). iD is a general purpose editor. It can be used for OpenHistoricalMap too. Indeed - perhaps I should have been clearer that I'm talking about the instance in use on the OSM site used to edit the OSM map, not any other instance which presumably could feature any layers that it liked. So how do we deal with an overload of map layers? I think it's a tool issue. Indeed - and I'm sure that the iD developers would say patches welcome at this point! So to conclude, I wouldn't remove any layers right now. We know that the Mapbox layer is likely to improve as they acquire and process more data (see their blog), but similarly the old OS layers hosted by OSM provide an alternate to the NLS versions (they may use different year sheets in some places) and keepping them online will help motivate people to scan more historic sheets in. We are thinking of having a scanning party here in the West Midlands! I don't think anyone's suggesting removing them altogether, but it seems senseless to me to feature old inaccuate maps in an editor instance targeted at new users above GPS traces. When I select edit in iD on the main site (on a laptop PC with a larger than average number of vertical pixels) I don't se any options below custom - so I don't see that I can add a GPS layer, and I don't see that I can align imagery where it is misplaced, but I am invited to use the e.g. Bartholomew 1/2 inch from 189x as a source! Do you actually use e.g. the Bartholomew 1/2 inch layer as a source for updating non-historical information in OSM? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
On 28/10/2013 19:28, SomeoneElse wrote: series, Mapbox Satellite or Mapquest Open Aerial, and if anyone's using NPE, Bartholomew 1/2 inch or OS 1 inch as backgrounds they probably shouldn't be using iD to do it (if for no other reason due to alignment issues). Am I maligning these sources and is there actually a valid reason why someone might want to trace from, say, NPE when more recent better aligned data is now available? NPE was great in its day, and a big thank you to all involved in providing it, it was a fantastic help in getting a rural map of Wharfedale up. Now, for OSM mapping per se, I never use it. Bing for GPS adjusted tracing and the OS 25K layers are almost completely a superset when it comes to looking for names, such as farm houses. As posters later in this thread point out, there is still some separate value for historic use, a number of mineral lines, for example, appear on NPE but not on either of the 25K layers due to survey dates. I have no strong views, but there may be value in removing it from editing OSM per se. I really wish that person who traced all those streams (me) hadn't because the alignment is terrible and a lot of the footpaths are way off even if they actually exist now. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] London LOOP
Hey! I've recently started walking the London LOOP[1]. It's a 24 section walking tour around London which seems mostly fully mapped (yay!). However, it is mapped as one route which is rather large (245km). I wonder whether it would be a good idea to actually split it up in each of the sections and use a relation to combine them into the LOOP? Right now, it is really not possible to see where each section starts and ends. I'm more than happy to do this when I go around - and of course at the same time update the route where it has changed. cheers, Derick [1] http://derickrethans.nl/the-loop-part1.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Vanguard Way
Hi David, It looks like the Vanguard Way website uses OS maps, and the ways that form part of it in OSM haven't all been surveyed for e.g. surface, gates and stiles, and that sort of thing. I can assure you that I walked every bit of it last year, so I'd be surprised if many gates or stiles were missing. The surface of fields I leave to others. Rgds, Vic ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vanguard Way
UrbanRambler1 wrote: Hi David, (it was me that said this, actually) It looks like the Vanguard Way website uses OS maps, and the ways that form part of it in OSM haven't all been surveyed for e.g. surface, gates and stiles, and that sort of thing. I can assure you that I walked every bit of it last year, so I'd be surprised if many gates or stiles were missing. The surface of fields I leave to others. Rgds, Vic Oops - my apologies. I just didn't spot any in the section that I very quickly looked at west of Hailsham. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Geological Data
It is an area that interests me too, explicitly surface expression of geology, (outcrops and faults mostly) and geomorphology (interesting drumlins, meander loops, landslips, ...). My personal conclusion is that by all means do low-key experimentation but that any systematic mapping is better off for all in a separate but compatible database a la Open Historical Map ... and a lot easy to implement than the historic map. Like Jerry I still have all my old field books and hand-drawn OS ?1:5000 overlays. Do students still do it like that? If so, one thing that intrigues me as a project is to set up a system whereby students could map digitally into an OSM-friendly system so that progressively all those little squares build up a comprehensive outcrop map of all the UK. There is probably all sorts of small stuff here and there buried in student assignments that was missed by the pros. Collated together it might also provide a seriously useful academic resource. I already map historic mining activity in northern Yorkshire and Co. Durham directly into OSM as it is something that can be systematically migrated to another resource when the time comes. Motivated by Jonathan's posting, I have just done a knowledge dump [1] . I would greatly welcome other joining me elsewhere the country. I map from NPE, OS25K, Bing imagery and local knowledge. Bing imagery is fascinating in moorland areas. See [2] for example of a place I have stayed at several times completely unaware that the close proximity is riddled with old, probably lead, mine shafts. Mike [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Historic_Mining_Activity [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/54.15584/-2.01688 Buckden, Wharfedale example of mine shaft identification using Bing imagery. On 11/10/2013 00:25, SK53 wrote: I had a very brief chat with someone at SotM touching on this. I don't think the 1inch:10 mile data is at all useful in OSM: it's too generalised and would result in huge awkward to maintain polygons. However in many places the field geology is much more detailed and is both at a scale compatible with OSM and there is potential for adding lots of detail. This is particularly true in the Classic Areas: Matlock, Arran, Craven etc. I'm sure I'm not alone in having some old field notebooks (including laboriously drawn maps traced from OS Geological Survey) with masses of such detail. Probably the place to start is in finding a way to map classic exposures (many will be protected as SSSIs). I know I've added a small cliff (quarry) face which is the southernmost exposure of Magnesian Limestone, but I don't know if I added any geology related tags at the time. Faults may be another feature suitable for mapping in the short term: in the coal measures many of these will be adequately mapped on out-of-copyright geology maps (I would think virtually all the 1 inch maps ought to be OOC by now). A related topic is old mines quarries. There is a substantial literature community interested in the industrial archaeology of mining. In many places the impact on the landscape artefacts are still (all too) present. Adding information about the geology alongside the archaeology would make mapping much more informative (see things like the Manganese mines of Merionethshire http://www.davel.f2s.com/hendrecoed/Merioneth-Manganese/ or Dolaucothi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolaucothi_Gold_Mines). There are also aspects of geology (and possibly soils) which are of interest to naturalists. Apart from broad things like lime-rich soils, one often comes across fine detail: the thing which occurs to me are gley soils in alluvial deposits. These locations are usually not quarried in gravel pits and therefore have their original vegetation. Enough ideas, if you want to waste a couple of hours the Borehole Database on the IGS site is absolutely fascinating! Jerry On 10 October 2013 22:32, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering whether anybody had discussed importing geological data into OSM before. We map surface details about the land cover and underground use if it's man-made so why not geological data? The BGS have a load of data at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/opengeoscience/downloads.html. So was wondering what people thought about it? Jonathan -- http://bigfatfrog67.me ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Hi Andy, I get all of your points on this one, but just as we generally don't go and remove other peoples custom tags, I think it would be a shame if we remove available layers. Having historical background layers can attract people to other projects (Open Historical Map). I've even used historic layers to apply for new rights of way. As noted it's a problem with the tool (iD in this instance) and hopefully any fix will include ability to filter by date. This would be the perfect solution, as it would be of huge benefit to the Open Historical Map team. I encourage you to add this to your bug entry. I'll end by noting that the introduction to OSM on the wiki home page does not make any distinction between current and historic geographic data: Welcome to OpenStreetMap, the project that creates and distributes free geographic data for the world. We started it because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. Best wishes, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD Rob Nickerson wrote: 2). iD is a general purpose editor. It can be used for OpenHistoricalMap too. Indeed - perhaps I should have been clearer that I'm talking about the instance in use on the OSM site used to edit the OSM map, not any other instance which presumably could feature any layers that it liked. It's worth pointing out that iD doesn't actually have an imagery list. It inherits its from the editor-imagery-index project at http://osmlab.github.io/editor-imagery-index/, which is for OpenStreetMap editing, not historical mapping or a general list of all possible imagery. So how do we deal with an overload of map layers? I think it's a tool issue. Indeed - and I'm sure that the iD developers would say patches welcome at this point! Dealing with it from a UI perspective is difficult, and I get the impression that's the main issue, not the coding once the UI is figured out. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Dealing with it from a UI perspective is difficult, and I get the impression that's the main issue, not the coding once the UI is figured out. I'm not a UI designer, but I'll have a go at sketching a few ideas over the next 7 days. It would be a shame to drop background layers where they are useful for wider geographical data (be that in historical mapping, or picking up names of land features that may have been forgotten over the course of time) and have acted as a good way for us to build up a wider community. Regards, Rob p.s. I cannot hep with the coding as that is way beyond my limited skills. I am however happy to add any additional tags to the background layer .json files on the github page you linked to. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
