Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
One feature that I've found that I now use quite frequently to help with the problems associated with increasingly detailed mapping is the Filter panel in JOSM. Now that, for example, there's lots of landuse, buildings, and highways all in fairly close proximity I have filters to pick out, for example, just the highways. That enables me to avoid accidentally selecting an adjacent woodland to a highway when adding a maxspeed for example. One of the levels of detail that I've been collecting recently is the maxspeed of all the roads in my area. I have a filter set up such that roads with a maxspeed are dimmed, such that I can easily see the places that I still need to gather the data, and such that I don't miss tagging those small portions of roads, like turning heads and bridges. From: Nick Allen [mailto:nick.allen...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 January 2013 22:24 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries Steve, Putting another perspective on this, one of my other hobbies is Scouting, where I try to teach young people about maps navigation. In this country there is a tendency to assume that any navigation must involve OS maps, I try to widen their knowledge get them to question the accuracy of anything they are using for navigation. I've put in quite a few boundaries barriers, to OSM, and I produce paper maps for my Scouts to navigate by, before I introduce them to compasses, GPS's anything else that aids navigation. As a mapper, I do find that it is getting more more difficult to alter or add to data because we've added so much detail. I would like someone (sorry, don't have any skills in the software department) to produce something that aids in editing densely compacted data - certainly I've made my share of mistakes in the past then spent twice as long trying to correct them. I don't know about anyone else, but every so often I need a break from walking residential streets collating address details, and a walk in the countryside works for me. Regards Nick (Tallguy) On 02/01/13 15:50, Steven Horner wrote: I guess it depends on your uses for OSM, I come from a walking backgroundwith GIS use in my day job, I have completed Mountain Leader Training and I am interested in the possibilities of replacing Explorer maps (one day) with OSM. For this to happen boundaries would be useful although not essential and their would be lot of other hurdles like Grids but that's a different topic. I set this discussion away and expected different view points for and against. My take on all this is if you are happy to go out and map them, then do so. If someone else isn't interested in doing that then that's no problem and if a user doesn't want that information shown on map it could be removed from their rendering in the same way I wish it was available at lower zoom levels. OSM is different things to different people and that is part of the beauty of it, in my mind the more detail the better the ability to view it our own ways is available although I wish their was a way to turn some things on and off more easily from Openstreetmap.org without rendering my own version. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 31/12/2012 21:17, Steven Horner wrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM ... I'm afraid I'm going to be a bit of a party pooper. Whilst having all the boundary data in OSM would be nice, I'd hardly call it essential. I do a lot of rural walking always record map any barriers that are relevant to the path I'm on, but, personally, I consider mapping all hedges etc. a waste of time. Why bother if no one is ever going to use that information by walking there? I consider farmland as the base layer therefore rarely map it as fields. Cheers Dave F. -- http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/swww.png www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/stwitter.png @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/sphone.png 0191 645 2265 http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/sskype.png stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 Thu, 2013-01-03 at 06:52 +, Dudley Ibbett wrote: Personally, it is good to see others adding field boundaries. I thought it might be useful to describe my current practice with regard to mapping field boundaries. In making the following comments, I would say that I am interested in landscape maintenance and presevation and not just navigation. We have had to fight several planning applications in our valley and have won theses based on the quality of the landscape. Having good maps of this is important. OSM could be useful tool in this context. I started mapping field boundaries as a Newbie (I'm not sure when you stop being one) about 10 months back. At the time I made some enquires on the Newbie mailing list about how to handle field boundaries and roads. From this I concluded that you shouldn't join field boundaries to roads. I also started mapping the field boundaries along roads. The suggestion seemed to be that this should be done for completeness. Drawing field boundaries along roads is diffcult to do neatly and looks messy at high OSM zoom. However when you scale back, the road rendering masks this. It is probably worth going to more trouble where main roads are concerned and their line is unlikely to be adjusted. In JOSM you can create a parallel way from the road which can help. I am increasingly thinking that in cases like this, we should begin to map roads as areas. I would leave the road way in the centre, but then around the road turn the parallel ways into an area and join those to the hedge way. I think this will probably look better than hoping the renderer will get it right at all zoom levels. I appreciate that this should not be default mapping practice, but once you are into micromapping an area, then it does seem a logical step. What do others think? Phil ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
I hadn't looked at the South of Durham around Houghall before, that is fantastic. I had seen the centre was well mapped, but to go to the detail of individual trees. It isn't too much detail either in that particular setting (in my opinion). There does appear to be quite a few people mapping County Durham. I will use Bowburn and South of Durham as a reference and example. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: I was inspired by Strange but Untrue mapping from Bowburn and South of Durham City. She did amazing detail with the footpaths, types of barriers, and gates. She also went on some interesting walks by the looks of it. Over a year ago, I did some tracing to make a line of barriers and landuse from Croxdale curving S/SE round to Sherburn. The idea to make it a target for me to do (including ground surveying as needed house numbers), filling in between there and Durham City. Sadly I've not been too strong on it. Middlesbrough has a lot more land use are surrounding it. But it's been done by as large areas of farmland to quickly fill in the blank canvas, and I'm not sure it has much ground-knowledge at all. Perhaps together, we could make County Durham a great example of landuse and barrier mapping? -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
The problem I have mapping field boundaries round here is that they are very difficult to categorise. Historically, they were all dry stone walls. However, dry stone walls need rebuilding periodically, which is expensive. If the fields are used for livestock, farmers put up posts with a single strand of barbed wire along the top, to make them stock proof. If this is done on both sides of the wall, this produces a strip of ground up to six feet wide in which anything can grow. So in some places the wall is still in good condition and would be tagged as a wall; in some places the wall has largely collapsed so the barrier is effectively the two fences with a heap of stone between; and in some places lots of hedgerow plants have taken root and the barrier is a hedge (and maintained as such by the farmer to the extent of getting an annual trim). All three types can occur within say a 20 metres length of field boundary. Trying to tag metre by metre depending on appearance would be tedious and produce (IMO) a very ugly map, and impossible to do reliably from aerial imagery; but any single tag seems misleading. Any suggestions? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Gregory wrote: Middlesbrough has a lot more land use are surrounding it. But it's been done by as large areas of farmland to quickly fill in the blank canvas, and I'm not sure it has much ground-knowledge at all. That does highlight an issue that I find frustrating - that mapping of landuse / barriers etc. is a particular problem if it's done badly (e.g. ways that share some nodes but not others, that share nodes with things that they shouldn't because they were added at too low a zoom level, or were added based on historical low-resolution sources such as NPE). If you're going to add individual fields, make sure that you've got some GPS traces to line the imagery up with, and do a rough visual survey from over the hedge to make sure that all the field boundaries are actually still there! Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Middlesbrough has a lot more land use are surrounding it. But it's been done by as large areas of farmland to quickly fill in the blank canvas, and I'm not sure it has much ground-knowledge at all. I think I started that (or at least the bit to the West of Hartlepool). It is pretty accurate - it is a large area of farmland. Always opportunities to add more detail though - when is a clump of trees part of the farm, and when is it a natural=wood? The biggest problem is deciding how to deal with edges of the areas - it is neatest to share nodes, but it is a right pain to edit thenm once they are joined together, so I think I kept a lot of them as separate nodes placed very close together, but it does look as though there are noticable gaps now. I'll add some field boundaries when I get bored GJ -- 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
Given there is probably no right way to do this I would adopt the same approach in this situation and keep it simple. Wall (the origin of the boundary) or fence the actual barrier at this time, it is up to you. My preference would be wall. Dudley Sent from my iPad On 3 Jan 2013, at 14:57, cotswolds mapper osmcotswo...@gmail.com wrote: The problem I have mapping field boundaries round here is that they are very difficult to categorise. Historically, they were all dry stone walls. However, dry stone walls need rebuilding periodically, which is expensive. If the fields are used for livestock, farmers put up posts with a single strand of barbed wire along the top, to make them stock proof. If this is done on both sides of the wall, this produces a strip of ground up to six feet wide in which anything can grow. So in some places the wall is still in good condition and would be tagged as a wall; in some places the wall has largely collapsed so the barrier is effectively the two fences with a heap of stone between; and in some places lots of hedgerow plants have taken root and the barrier is a hedge (and maintained as such by the farmer to the extent of getting an annual trim). All three types can occur within say a 20 metres length of field boundary. Trying to tag metre by metre depending on appearance would be tedious and produce (IMO) a very ugly map, and impossible to do reliably from aerial imagery; but any single tag seems misleading. Any suggestions? ___ 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
Steve, Putting another perspective on this, one of my other hobbies is Scouting, where I try to teach young people about maps navigation. In this country there is a tendency to assume that any navigation must involve OS maps, I try to widen their knowledge get them to question the accuracy of anything they are using for navigation. I've put in quite a few boundaries barriers, to OSM, and I produce paper maps for my Scouts to navigate by, before I introduce them to compasses, GPS's anything else that aids navigation. As a mapper, I do find that it is getting more more difficult to alter or add to data because we've added so much detail. I would like someone (sorry, don't have any skills in the software department) to produce something that aids in editing densely compacted data - certainly I've made my share of mistakes in the past then spent twice as long trying to correct them. I don't know about anyone else, but every so often I need a break from walking residential streets collating address details, and a walk in the countryside works for me. Regards Nick (Tallguy) On 02/01/13 15:50, Steven Horner wrote: I guess it depends on your uses for OSM, I come from a walking backgroundwith GIS use in my day job, I have completed Mountain Leader Training and I am interested in the possibilities of replacing Explorer maps (one day) with OSM. For this to happen boundaries would be useful although not essential and their would be lot of other hurdles like Grids but that's a different topic. I set this discussion away and expected different view points for and against. My take on all this is if you are happy to go out and map them, then do so. If someone else isn't interested in doing that then that's no problem and if a user doesn't want that information shown on map it could be removed from their rendering in the same way I wish it was available at lower zoom levels. OSM is different things to different people and that is part of the beauty of it, in my mind the more detail the better the ability to view it our own ways is available although I wish their was a way to turn some things on and off more easily from Openstreetmap.org without rendering my own version. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 31/12/2012 21:17, Steven Horner wrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM ... I'm afraid I'm going to be a bit of a party pooper. Whilst having all the boundary data in OSM would be nice, I'd hardly call it essential. I do a lot of rural walking always record map any barriers that are relevant to the path I'm on, but, personally, I consider mapping all hedges etc. a waste of time. Why bother if no one is ever going to use that information by walking there? I consider farmland as the base layer therefore rarely map it as fields. Cheers Dave F. -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner ___ 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
Personally, it is good to see others adding field boundaries. I thought it might be useful to describe my current practice with regard to mapping field boundaries. In making the following comments, I would say that I am interested in landscape maintenance and presevation and not just navigation. We have had to fight several planning applications in our valley and have won theses based on the quality of the landscape. Having good maps of this is important. OSM could be useful tool in this context. I started mapping field boundaries as a Newbie (I'm not sure when you stop being one) about 10 months back. At the time I made some enquires on the Newbie mailing list about how to handle field boundaries and roads. From this I concluded that you shouldn't join field boundaries to roads. I also started mapping the field boundaries along roads. The suggestion seemed to be that this should be done for completeness. Drawing field boundaries along roads is diffcult to do neatly and looks messy at high OSM zoom. However when you scale back, the road rendering masks this. It is probably worth going to more trouble where main roads are concerned and their line is unlikely to be adjusted. In JOSM you can create a parallel way from the road which can help. I don't join field boundaries to rivers. This is a bit problematic as where I live rivers can have quite dense tree coverage and are part of the landscape character. I have yet to decide how this should be mapped. The same issue relates to the railway embankments which have trees lining them although there is fencing. Hepful suggestions would be welcome! When it comes to dry stone walls that have collapsed in places and been patched up with fencing, old gate or anything else the land owner has to hand I just mark the whole boundary as a dry stone wall. I live in hope they will be reparied! If there are clear, sizeable, lengths where the stones have been removed. i.e. there is no chance it will ever be repaired I would try and mark out the fence but it would only be an estimate. Perhaps rather more contraversaly if the wall has collapsed in its total length, and a wire fence has been put up but all the stones remain in place I still am inclined to mark it as a wall. I am thinking more in the context of the field boundary. i.e. If the stones weren't there the fence probably wouldn't be. If the wall is heavily overgrown and looking like a hedge I would still tag it as a wall. When it comes to hedges that have been patched up with small sections of fencing or have a fence parallel to them as they are no longer stock proof I would again just mark this as a complete hedge. Hedges that have not been cut for the last 10 years+ (we have a road locally where one side is cut every year and is about 2 meters hight and the other side must be more than 10 meters) I still tag as hedges. Again, if there were obvious and large sections of just fence or stone wall come to that I would tag these but they would only be an estimate. If the hedge has become a line of trees (i.e. no longer used as a stock boundary) then I use natural=tree_row. It seems the most suitable tag available but doesn't render on the OSM map. Where paths pass through gaps in boundaries I tend (if the gap is small) to map this as a complete boundary with an entrance node where the path passes through the boundary. I do tag the source as survey;bing if I have seen it or just bing if it from the imagery only. If I have walked along it or have waymarked the end I would probably add gps. If your using JOSM it is well worth hacking your own preset to do the above. You can also add a source drop down list to make adding this easy to do. When it comes to drawing the ways that make up a field I'm afraid I am not consistant in how I do this. i.e. I don't draw each side of a field as a seperate way and the ways may make up more than one field. This I'm sure isn't compatable with tagging individual field landuse at a later date. Sorry. I would add on this subject that there is an area where someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to map out all the individual fields as seperate fields with a landuse=field tag. I don't currrently know how to tag these with a boundary tag as it would seem I would end up with a wall on top of a wall for each field if I just added barrier=wall to each area. Any suggestions on how to do this would be appreciated. Apologies for going on a bit but I though the above comments might be helpful. Regards Dudley ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
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
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] Marking landuse and field boundaries
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
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Steven, On 31 Dec 2012 21:19, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: 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 From just a quick glance your fields look okay but the names of the roads and woods should be capitalised (not sure if you mapped those as well). If you enjoy adding fields keep doing so. There may not be many now but I expect more people will add them in the future when their areas are complete for roads, buildings, etc. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
