Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing
Hi, On 20/12/2020 15:50, Alan Mackie wrote: I'm also unclear how to tag numbered houses in named terraces. addr:housename doesn't seem appropriate if they are shared along an entire row and addr:street already has a value. In NE England there are a number of 1850ish - 1900ish terraces where the terrace is named, rather than the surrounding highway. This caused me a lot of confusion when starting out cycle surveying and mapping as what street signs there were, conflicted. :-) A good indication of such a situation up here is a battered enamel tin plate (dark blue rusty) or cast iron (just rusty) name plate on the terrace - original, and probably installed when the highway was compacted earth! I just add `name`="Fourth Row" to the `building=terrace` for simplicity, although duplicating with `addr:housename` also seems OK. These days, I also use the JOSM terracer to break terraces into dwellings - survey, count the chimneys, or check the high-res Bing back garden fence imagery. I've also run into this for blocks of flats. "Block B" doesn't seem like a housename either? The addr:block tags seems to be for named city blocks. Do we have some sort of local grouping tag? There's a few options mentioned in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr (which is probably the issue here - the lowest common denominator across cultures will always give confusion!). I've used `addr:unit` for commercial premises (like 1A, 1B, 2, etc for shops) but `addr:block` seems to be for a very different use case (grid iron city blocks - Fifteenth and...). The simple `name` or `addr:housename` tag kind of fits the hierarchy, so KISS? Happy Mapping, James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points
Hi, Here's a couple of local examples for reference and comment... On 26/11/2020 11:16, Jez Nicholson wrote: A Recycling Centre being the local 'tip', see https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/find-your-nearest-recycling-centre <https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/find-your-nearest-recycling-centre> Called a 'Household Waste Recovery Centre' in Northumberland (although we still 'go to the tip'!): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/858629908 * amenity=recycling * recycling_type=centre A Recycling Point being a cluster of recycling containers in, say, at the end of your local supermarket car park. Often given a name by the Council, see https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/recycling-points <https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/recycling-points> Local example for glass bottles (skip with holes, but as you say can be more specialised for clothes, shoes, etc.): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6538028486 * amenity=recycling * recycling_type=container Happy Mapping, James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN wiki page
Hi, Thanks for the additional information Mark - very useful. On 18/11/2020 11:28, Mark Goodge wrote: What I'd suggest, therefore, is that we should add as many USRNs as possible, based on a best-match between the relevant OSM way and the OS OpenUSRN geometry. But we should only add UPRNs that are unambiguously the correct one for a particular building or structure. +1 That makes a lot of sense, as does the other comments about the geometry and modelling (down to way segments) of OS and OSM mapping being different. The UPRN point is well made - the junction of Glazebury Way / Gisburn Court has both a foul drain cover (subterranean infra ref?) and a Northumberland County Council grit bin (with a NCC-specific reference label)! My hope in attempting the earlier Overpass query is that a JOSM validator might be possible to assist with tagging, however the complexities being discussed here suggest that UPRN=building; USRN=highway; is both simple and wrong in several edge cases. In case you want to visualise the earlier discussion about Cramlington, here's an https://overpass-turbo.eu/ query to show the USRN data I added as soon as it became publicly available: ---cut here--- //[bbox:south,west,north,east] [out:json][timeout:25][bbox:55.08,-1.60,55.10,-1.566]; ( way["ref:GB:usrn"]; ); // print results out body; >; out skel qt; ---cut here--- (and change "ref:GB:usrn" to "ref:GB:uprn" to see house references, and the missing building I'm about to add...) Happy Mapping, James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN wiki page
Morning all,
On 17/11/2020 15:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
what we have is what, from a mapping perspective, is a single road
(Glazebury Way), but that comprises multiple OSM ways. So it's not
unreasonable to add the UPRN to all the ways which make up the road.
However, in this case I think I am talking bollocks. Although the OSM
mapper has assigned UPRN 10071171668 to Glazebrook Way, the OS
OpenUPRN OpenUSRN and OpenMap lookups link it to Gairloch Close. If we
look at Gairloch Close (USRN 3230053) on my USRN map:
Owning up, that mapper is me!
Just as Rob N added U*RN to his portfolio of useful visualisation tools,
I noticed that adding UPRN to building=* gave location-checked green
circles, adding UPRN to highway=* didn't seem to.
As an experiment, I added the same ID to both ref:GB:usrn and
ref:GB:uprn tags and promptly forgot about the double tagging.
Jez let me know in a changeset discussion here, and the errant tag removed:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90968241
So, if there's any talking bollocks here - it's been uttered by me on
home turf!
I've removed the experimental double-tagging, and attempted to create a
basic Overpass Turbo query to look for (what could be) incorrect values:
---cut here---
[out:json][timeout:25];
// gather results
(
// node or way double tagged
node["ref:GB:usrn"]["ref:GB:uprn"]({{bbox}});
way["ref:GB:usrn"]["ref:GB:uprn"]({{bbox}});
// highway with Property
way["ref:GB:uprn"]["highway"]({{bbox}});
// building with Street
node["ref:GB:usrn"]["building"]({{bbox}});
way["ref:GB:usrn"]["building"]({{bbox}});
);
// print results
out body;
>;
out skel qt;
---cut here---
And now down the rabbit hole...
there's a single linked UPRN that appears to be on Glazebury Way, or
at least the intersection of Glazebury Way and Gairloch Close, rather
than one of the properties on Gairloch Close. Follow that link, and
it's UPRN 10071171668:
https://uprn.uk/10071171668
Now, there's nothing more we can discover from the maps and lookups,
given that the OS open data doesn't tell us precisely what it is and
the maps aren't sufficiently high-resolution. But if we cheat a bit
and go to the location on Google Maps, then switch into street view:
https://goo.gl/maps/ojwFAP21D4HkUvX77
I have a strong hunch that UPRN 10071171668 is actually a subsurface
property (eg, a utilities conduit) accessed via that manhole cover.
Now that's a whole level of complexity which I wasn't previously aware
of. If the data set includes data for ALL entity types (e.g. not just
buildings, streets and the odd post box), then my assumption that a U*RN
in the middle of a highway which looks like a logical centre point for a
way segment could be incorrect.
Looking out of my window (I did say this is home turf...) there is a
foul drain cover at the intersection of Glazebury/ Gisburn, and likely
one at Glazebury/ Gisburn (it's currently chucking it down here, so not
keen to check immediately).
Building UPRN tags appear to be more clear-cut, with the U*SN location
node around the centre of a building way.
As we all learn more about the data, perhaps I (and others?) may have
been to quick to add USRN tags as they first became available?
As several of you appear to have additional sources to validate USRN,
could you offer any suggestions to alter these specific
highway=residential please?
James
--
James Derrick
li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo
On 13/11/2020 09:06, Philip Barnes wrote: Also I have been thinking of height restrictions on level crossings where the railway is electrified. I believe that the East Coast line has level crossings? After many years looking out of the window travelling from NCL to EDI on the East Coast Main Line (ECML is a common abbreviation - e.g. in bridge references), I'd give a special mention to the rural level crossings which have two poles and a line of suspended bells across the track to (hopefully) alert any machinery operators that Something Bad Is About to Happen! 'got_bells_on = yes' perhaps? :-) Sadly, I don't have specific examples, just the memory of countryside, likely either side of Berwick. A little more seriously, several types of infrastructure have over-height detection kit - e.g. the Tyne Tunnel has broken beam detectors across the carriageway about 1km from the tunnel portal. Look for the poles with two sets of broken beam kit abode the 30 sign in this image: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/LdqV481D4eAHnvBvrcgKEg This height restriction is more complex as to add a safety cell (evacuation route) to the original Northbound circular bore, the lanes were moved off-centre. This means lane 1 has greater clearance than lane 2 - creating the regular task of replacing the signage above lane 2 when a lorry driver decides to illegally overtake! donk, donk, donk, crash... And yes, the approach bridges are 'got_bells_on = yes': https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/QvgXLAvET7V3xjEdX2Ir_g The question with the TT is how to tag 5.1 m lane 1 and 4.0 m lane 2 on a single highway=trunk; lanes=2? It's not tagged today, so adding the 5.1m to the trunk would make sense as 4.0m would give a false routing. I'm not personally a fan of the analagous way lane tagging is used to model the A1 further north (turn:lanes=through|through|right), as it's not human readable on most renders (#include ). James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK's first tile layer
Hi, On 27/10/2020 06:18, Adrian via Talk-GB wrote: I agree with Rob that the misalignment of 5m is obvious if you look at Hugh Town (Scilly). Both if you compare with the OSM data and if you compare with the tracklogs that have been uploaded to OSM. So this transformation won't do. I think we need to go for the look-up table. Whilst the details of your geodesy is impressive but way beyond my expertise, over ten years of OSM survey traces suggests another factor to be wary of when comparing sub-10m position sources. Using a Garmin Oregon 550 as a baseline, Oregon 650 and 750 consistently give location between 4-8m North North West in Northumberland - the tool may influence the measurement beyond your accuracy. For resilience, I map with at least two GPSr on my bike handlebars and regularly upload both tracks to OSM and use both to better position mapping and any layers such as imagery. Over the years I've used five or six Garmin GPSr. None are even close to a 'proper' differential total station, however with datum/ spheroid set to WGS 84, the same tools and JOSM workflow show the offset. Changing GPS/ GLONASS or WAAS/ EGNOS seems to have less impact than the choice of Garmin unit (same settings across devices). Firmware updates have changed motion compensation when changing direction fast, but the offset remains. The trouble will be is without device data in tracklogs there's no way to separate random from systematic offsets (even if you had them...) - you can only average all data. Thanks for your interesting work - I remember tales from Registers of Scotland of an OS baseline survey error that 'moved' the East coast by many meters proving 'You Are Here' is hard to quantify! James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
On 04/10/2020 07:42, Edward Bainton wrote: I've been marking them as false positives as to my mind it's obvious that you wouldn't U-turn there (but equally, it would be legal to do so). You would also probably need a vehicle with a tight turning circle, and a quiet road - so agree it would be an unusual choice. Agree false positives. But the points about machine routing make me think maybe I shouldn't be closing these off? Any thoughts? Your example looks like a very common roundabout flare 3-way node with a cycleway crossing node. Taking the JOSM code as an example, perhaps the "ImproveOSM" validation also has a segment length test (<20m?) so the crossing is suggesting a more complex junction? Eg, at node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26187838 Personally, adding restrictions to this common a use-case should be unnecessary (fix once in the router, not every roundabout on the map). Save your effort for more complex junctions where software understandably needs a helping hand with real-world oddities. Happy Mapping, James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
Hi Dave, Thanks for answering my original router logic question! :-) On 03/10/2020 17:52, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I've just tested in JOSM. It flagged no such validation warning. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3403352 Interesting - you're right, I couldn't easily reproduce the 'Sharp Angle' validation warning in the latest JOSM either. After hunting out the code, the warning currently isn't triggered unless the segment leading to a <45deg angle is <10m: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/data/validation/tests/SharpAngles.java Looking at a couple of local roundabouts via imagery, a flare this short verges on a single node highway=mini_roundabout, unless lots of extra nodes have been added to the flare to give a curved approach. After over a dozen years of using JOSM, it still surprises me with extra features. Happy Mapping, James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
Hi, On 03/10/2020 14:05, Brian Prangle wrote: There seems to be a predilection for adding turn restrictions , either no right rurns or no U turns at the exit flares of roundabouts to prevent turning back into the entry flares where there are no explicit signed restrictions. I suspect this is "rendering for routers". Do routers actually need this data? I'm tempted just to delete them all wherever I meet them, but I suspect there are thousands of them and there'll be howls of complaint. About the only change I've made in years of mapping 'non-mini' roundabouts is to split the oneway=yes flare 'V' into two segments. JOSM validation started flagging the junction node of the V as too tight a bend, which I suppose makes sense. I wonder if seeing a junction node of three vertices rather than a 300degree turn on one segment make a difference to roundabout unaware routers? Poor attempt at an ASCII diagram explaining what a two segment flare is below! Flare 1 ->---\ * Road 3 continues away from roundabout Flare 2 -<---/ Flares are the oneway=yes roads connecting to the roundabout. These are often a single V shaped segment, rather than two plus the road. James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Hi, On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: So this is a bit of a warning, really, for the open mapping community. Although the open data release of USRN ids and coordinates is welcome, don't be tempted to look up street names on the street list published, with a restrictive licence, on https://www.findmystreet.co.uk and then copy them to our own data. Because it simply isn't reliable enough as a guide to actual usage, even if it is what the "official" name of the road may be. Stick to OS Open Data and local knowledge. Thanks - that's an interesting and informative tale about 'canonical' sources being sourced by human beings from complex and contradictory data. Some years ago, I remember being rather surprised investigating differences between my own surveys and OS open data using ITO tools. After double checking the 'ground truth', OSM is closer to reality than OS in several places around my area - perhaps 3 diffs across a 45k population town (Cramlington, NE23). Geography and human society is more complex with the same space being called many things over time, and by different groups. How many small towns didn't have a 'High Street' until an OS surveyor first visited it and wrote a name down? How many 19th century terraces originally had the buildings named, rather than the surrounding streets? Working in telecoms, I understand the benefits of a UPRN / USRN, however as a geographer they still feel a bit like a more precise version of 'High Street'. I still added U*RN tags to my local area - like a 21st century alt_name tag! :-) James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a Department Store
Hi, On 19/12/2019 19:12, Philip Barnes wrote: The key feature in my mind is that each department is that you paid in each shop, you couldn't buy a pair of shoes and pay for them in the record department. TBH, I don't remember big stores in NE England (e.g. Fenwick, Callers, Farnons in NCL), enforcing a 'pay here' separation. It may have been there, but I was more interested in the vacuum shuttle systems taking the invoice and cash back to the safe! My thought on taxonomy is more about the physical separation of one enterprise into multiple departments, each specialising in one class of goods with product displays, people, and advice separated into sections. To re-use your 'Are You Bing Served' example - "/Ground floor perfumery stationary, and leather goods/, /wigs."/ Some supermarkets sell washing machines, but there's much less of a separation into departments - a tin of paint may be on the same shelf (e.g Tesco Extra - one big shed full of stuff no one can find). The big thing that kept me out of such places was the perfume department which always seemed to be just inside the main door to overpower and drive me back out. The House of Fraser on the West end of Princes Street Edinburgh being the worst I remember - hazard=Chanel No.5 perhaps? :-) In OSM we are using department store to describe most commonly for example M & S. Whilst it does have departments, you take things to a single till. Food is still sort of separate, but as far as I am aware you can pay for your socks along with your groceries. Again, I see the physical organisation as the differentiator, not the payment mechanism. ASDA Home may fit this, but again you pay at a single till area. Was taken to TK Maxx today, had never been in before and had always assumed it was a clothes shop and had mapped it as such. It sells much more than clothes, actually felt like BHS used to. But again you take things to a single till. On checking, iD suggests Department Store. Hmm, never been in one. Perhaps another factor is the breadth of items stocked and type (convenience/ shopping/ speciality/ unsought goods)? * Supermarket = sells food and other consumables, with limited higher-order of goods mixed freely on shelves and isles. * Department = sells speciality goods physically separated into departments, may sell convenience and shopping goods but in one area (e.g. a food hall, delicatessen, or similar department). Am I stuck in the 70s? You are not alone! Meaningful stuff happened like decimilsation, Tubular Bells, Glastonbury, the Range Rover, but then again so did, strikes, power cuts, the Hillman Avenger, and the last canal commercial carrying... TTFN, James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing
Hi Edward, On 18/12/2019 16:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] : https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5YJames Brilliant - there is a rash of barrier=kerb in North Tyneside (Cullercoates and Whitley Bay), which rather explains the original routing issues. Time to fire up JOSM... Thanks, James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
On 16/12/2019 12:32, Andy Townsend wrote: * Firstly, I only tend to add farmland etc. after I've added fences, walls, ditches, gates, bits of woodland etc. (it's just easier that way around). * If the crop extends right up to the hedge, I'd tend to have the hedge sharing nodes with both fields. * If there's a ditch, track or other separating feature I'd try and draw the hedges either side (if they exist) and have the farmland not sharing nodes with the ditch but with the hedge (if it exists). Similarly I wouldn't attach farmland to roads. * If there's an uncultivated strip around the edge of the field I wouldn't tend to include that in the "field". Similarly if an area is left as scrub (perhaps to wet for crops), I'd map as scrub. +1 After several years mapping Northumberland (about 60% complete!), that's almost exactly the same style I've landed on. Adding boundaries and rivers first helps get a feel for the area, then adding individual polygons is easier with the follow tool in JOSM. Large areas of one polygon are a PITA to maintain later - e.g. if a meadow is ploughed up, or a housing estate appears. (I know - I've cursed my own previous less detailed mapping several times...) Also to help with maintenance, I separate roads from landuse UNLESS in upland areas where there may be less field boundaries but barrier=cattle_grid visible which means the sheep really are in the middle of the highway. And, please don't chop up roads into little segments so one way can be used in four area relations (my least favourite maintenance PITA). Your future self will be happier if you draw separate lines! :-) My own practice is to show a pattern of cultivation with different tags such as farmland, meadow, scrub, heath. In Northumberland this can give additional information at large scales as height limits the types of farming which are viable as you rise inland from the coast. And yes, farmers do indeed plough up grazing land and rotate crops - I try to map what is visible from cycle survey, and different imagery providers whilst accepting it's not going to be as canonical as a housing estate! TTFN, James James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing
Hi, After investigating two reports of OSRM routing failures around North Tyneside, the common factor I can see is barrier=kerb tags added to highway=crossing nodes intersecting highway=tertiary and highway=cycleway/ footway ways. Here are links to the two map note reports: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030228 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030238 To investigate the report, I entered the postcodes given into the default routing engine on the OSM map and found VERY odd routes going 10x the direct distance, and avoiding very obvious direct paths: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=55.0659%2C-1.4624%3B55.0511%2C-1.4530#map=14/55.0590/-1.4747&layers=N Personally, I'd not noticed the OSM main map had added several routing engines as I use separate tools, so have no idea how often the routing engines update their database extracts but expect the issue to be visible for a few days. After two examples of bad routing, I checked the paths between the geolocated points given and found one common factor - barrier=kerb on a road / footway highway=crossing node. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4341572135 My hunch is the router isn't familiar with barrier=kerb, so is assuming BOTH ways are blocked and using an alternate path. It is debatable how a routing engine should interpret highway=kerb tag, however my own thought is the kerb is not on the highway=secondary - it is on the highway=footway. If anywhere, there should be two nodes on the footway separate from the secondary to give information to wheelchair accessibility routers. As an experiment, I've removed the barrier=kerb from a highway-crossing and added two nodes on the cycleway, with the additional explicit tags of: barrier=kerb bicycle=yes foot=yes wheelchair=limited kerb=lowered tactile_paving=yes horse=yes (ISTR UK law says cycle = horse!) This is rather cumbersome compared with one barrier=kerb tag on the node, but logic suggests this is more consistent with reality and current routers. Has any one used the barrier=kerb tag, or is familiar with the inner workings of OSRM or similar engines please? Thanks, James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Tagging farmland in the UK
Hi, For about three years I've been adding field-level detail to Northumberland spreading out from the main conurbations, into to the rural network of farms and up into the higher hill areas where I walk and cycle. As well as adding field boundaries and farm settlement detail, I've been adding land use detail, which has just started a discussion with Gregory (Living with Dragons). https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70502558 I've been differentiating between cultivated areas mainly ploughed for crops and areas of grass used to graze animals. If I understand Gregory's comment (and well accept this may be incorrect...), the crux seems to be the use of landuse=farmland verses landuse=meadow. Can I ask what are you thoughts on (any) difference and best practice for the UK please? My interpretation (right or wrong) has been... landuse=meadow : grassy areas, not regularly ploughed, used for grazing animals such as cows or sheep. Evidence on imagery - cows, sheep, lack of tractor compaction tracks, medieval ridge/ furrow. landuse=farmland : cultivated areas ploughed for crops such as wheat or barley. Evidence on imagery - tractor compaction, ripening wheat, no animals. This is not a rigorous definition - e.g. a green field of barley without tractor tramlines could look like an empty field without sheep, but with local knowledge of cultivation, height, etc., my intention was to show differences as rich arable lowland areas fade into less fertile higher ground. As the altitude rises into the Northumberland National Park, sheep on grass gradually changes to open moorland, which, whilst you're reading this, is also worth a sanity check. landuse = heath : heather, and other low shrubs, formerly burnt but now cut, high hills And no, I wasn't avoiding natural = fell as it doesn't render in Mapnik; there was a lot of existing heath sketched in before I started, so it seemed best to continue! Thanks for any advice you can offer (and happy mapping...), https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick James -- James Derrick 4...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England Beyond the Horizon of the place we lived when we were young, In a World of Magnets and Miracles. Pink Floyd. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
