Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Peter Miller]

There are various waterway views available using ITO Map, as well as many
others.

They all have global coverage and are updated daily (rarely more than 24
delay on getting new data on the map).
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=3 (general water
view)
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=24 (navigable
waterways view)

More general information about ITO Map here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_Map


Regards,


Peter


On 1 January 2012 21:53, Graham Jones  wrote:

> Hi Will,
> I have put what I had previously back on line at
> http://www.maps.webhop.net/canals.
>
> The data is quite out of date (maybe 10 months) - I realised that I am
> lacking the 'boat=' tag from my database so can not re-render it tonight -
> I will re-generate it over the next couple of days.
>
> I did not think anyone was using this because there is an alternative at
> http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=24.
>
> This one could be developed into more of a 'user' map rather than a
> 'mapper' tool though - if you are interested in developing the cartography
> that would be great - it could do with icons for locks, moorings, water,
> fuel etc.
>
> I will move this to my 'maps3.org.uk' site (which is more responsive)
> from an end user point of view once I have sorted out the database so I can
> render the tiles on demand.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Graham.
>
> On 1 January 2012 17:55, Will Abson  wrote:
>
>> Hi Graham, I came across your waterways map a little while ago, and
>> thought it was a great visualisation tool.
>>
>> I'm just now trying to take a fresh look at some of the waterways data
>> for the UK that's held within OSM, but I see that your map is sadly no
>> longer accessible (I get a 404).
>>
>> If you'd be interested in making it available again then I could
>> perhaps provide some assistance as I have a small Linode server that's
>> currently not doing too much, but I would need your help to explain
>> how you put the map together.
>>
>> It would be great to get the waterways map (or something similar) back
>> online again, so please let me know if I can help.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Will.
>>
>> On 2 February 2011 21:02, Graham Jones  wrote:
>> > Hi Folks,
>> >
>> > Thanks to Chris for reminding me, I have updated my canals / waterways
>> map -
>> > it should now be up to date as of the early hours of this morning
>> > (http://maps.webhop.net/canals).
>> >
>> > It looks like good progress from the last update - much more like a
>> network
>> > now, but there are still some gaps!
>> >
>> > The things I noticed from my part of the country is that the River Tyne
>> is
>> > not rendered - must not have a 'boat=yes' tag - does anyone know how
>> far up
>> > the river you can get a boat to add this?
>> > Conversely I am not convinced that the river Wear upstream of Durham is
>> > navigable - I thought it got pretty shallow at Shincliffe?   Also there
>> is
>> > the problem of a Weir, so maybe there are only bits of it downstream
>> that
>> > are navigable too?
>> >
>> > This is still running on the computer in my living room so will seem
>> slow
>> > because of my internet connection, but I am working on getting minutely
>> > updating working on a little virtual server, which will seem better
>> from the
>> > outside world - I will be looking for suggestions for other
>> visualisations
>> > to include once I have got that working (adding more is very easy once
>> it is
>> > working), so please think of anything else you would like to see.
>> >
>> > Graham.
>> >
>> > On 19 January 2011 21:28, Graham Jones 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thank you all for your comments.
>> >>
>> >> Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks
>> >> altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see
>> just
>> >> north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a
>> >> 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown,
>> impassable
>> >> canal?
>> >>
>> >> I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level
>> >> 10.  Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals,
>> using
>> >> the mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml..
>> >>
>> >> Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing
>> because
>> >> my database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to
>> re-import the
>> >> whole uk, which takes a few hours...
>> >>
>> >> Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included?
>> >>
>> >> What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have
>> >> locks at the moment, because I remember these being the interesting
>> part of
>> >> canal boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would
>> like
>> >> to draw an icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of
>> my
>> >> dodgy drawings!
>> >>
>> >> Graham.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks Graham

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Graham Jones]

Hi Will,
I have put what I had previously back on line at
http://www.maps.webhop.net/canals.

The data is quite out of date (maybe 10 months) - I realised that I am
lacking the 'boat=' tag from my database so can not re-render it tonight -
I will re-generate it over the next couple of days.

I did not think anyone was using this because there is an alternative at
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=24.

This one could be developed into more of a 'user' map rather than a
'mapper' tool though - if you are interested in developing the cartography
that would be great - it could do with icons for locks, moorings, water,
fuel etc.

I will move this to my 'maps3.org.uk' site (which is more responsive) from
an end user point of view once I have sorted out the database so I can
render the tiles on demand.

Regards


Graham.

On 1 January 2012 17:55, Will Abson  wrote:

> Hi Graham, I came across your waterways map a little while ago, and
> thought it was a great visualisation tool.
>
> I'm just now trying to take a fresh look at some of the waterways data
> for the UK that's held within OSM, but I see that your map is sadly no
> longer accessible (I get a 404).
>
> If you'd be interested in making it available again then I could
> perhaps provide some assistance as I have a small Linode server that's
> currently not doing too much, but I would need your help to explain
> how you put the map together.
>
> It would be great to get the waterways map (or something similar) back
> online again, so please let me know if I can help.
>
> Cheers,
> Will.
>
> On 2 February 2011 21:02, Graham Jones  wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Thanks to Chris for reminding me, I have updated my canals / waterways
> map -
> > it should now be up to date as of the early hours of this morning
> > (http://maps.webhop.net/canals).
> >
> > It looks like good progress from the last update - much more like a
> network
> > now, but there are still some gaps!
> >
> > The things I noticed from my part of the country is that the River Tyne
> is
> > not rendered - must not have a 'boat=yes' tag - does anyone know how far
> up
> > the river you can get a boat to add this?
> > Conversely I am not convinced that the river Wear upstream of Durham is
> > navigable - I thought it got pretty shallow at Shincliffe?   Also there
> is
> > the problem of a Weir, so maybe there are only bits of it downstream that
> > are navigable too?
> >
> > This is still running on the computer in my living room so will seem slow
> > because of my internet connection, but I am working on getting minutely
> > updating working on a little virtual server, which will seem better from
> the
> > outside world - I will be looking for suggestions for other
> visualisations
> > to include once I have got that working (adding more is very easy once
> it is
> > working), so please think of anything else you would like to see.
> >
> > Graham.
> >
> > On 19 January 2011 21:28, Graham Jones  wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you all for your comments.
> >>
> >> Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks
> >> altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see
> just
> >> north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a
> >> 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown,
> impassable
> >> canal?
> >>
> >> I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level
> >> 10.  Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals,
> using
> >> the mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml..
> >>
> >> Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because
> >> my database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import
> the
> >> whole uk, which takes a few hours...
> >>
> >> Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included?
> >>
> >> What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have
> >> locks at the moment, because I remember these being the interesting
> part of
> >> canal boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would
> like
> >> to draw an icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my
> >> dodgy drawings!
> >>
> >> Graham.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Graham and Malcolm,
> >>>
> >>> Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the
> waterway
> >>> coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything
> >>> works.
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Talk-GB mailing list
> >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Graham Jones
> >> Hartlepool, UK.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Graham Jones
> > Hartlepool, UK.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Will Abson]

Hi Graham, I came across your waterways map a little while ago, and
thought it was a great visualisation tool.

I'm just now trying to take a fresh look at some of the waterways data
for the UK that's held within OSM, but I see that your map is sadly no
longer accessible (I get a 404).

If you'd be interested in making it available again then I could
perhaps provide some assistance as I have a small Linode server that's
currently not doing too much, but I would need your help to explain
how you put the map together.

It would be great to get the waterways map (or something similar) back
online again, so please let me know if I can help.

Cheers,
Will.

On 2 February 2011 21:02, Graham Jones  wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Thanks to Chris for reminding me, I have updated my canals / waterways map -
> it should now be up to date as of the early hours of this morning
> (http://maps.webhop.net/canals).
>
> It looks like good progress from the last update - much more like a network
> now, but there are still some gaps!
>
> The things I noticed from my part of the country is that the River Tyne is
> not rendered - must not have a 'boat=yes' tag - does anyone know how far up
> the river you can get a boat to add this?
> Conversely I am not convinced that the river Wear upstream of Durham is
> navigable - I thought it got pretty shallow at Shincliffe?   Also there is
> the problem of a Weir, so maybe there are only bits of it downstream that
> are navigable too?
>
> This is still running on the computer in my living room so will seem slow
> because of my internet connection, but I am working on getting minutely
> updating working on a little virtual server, which will seem better from the
> outside world - I will be looking for suggestions for other visualisations
> to include once I have got that working (adding more is very easy once it is
> working), so please think of anything else you would like to see.
>
> Graham.
>
> On 19 January 2011 21:28, Graham Jones  wrote:
>>
>> Thank you all for your comments.
>>
>> Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks
>> altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just
>> north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a
>> 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable
>> canal?
>>
>> I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level
>> 10.  Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals, using
>> the mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml..
>>
>> Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because
>> my database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import the
>> whole uk, which takes a few hours...
>>
>> Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included?
>>
>> What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have
>> locks at the moment, because I remember these being the interesting part of
>> canal boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would like
>> to draw an icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my
>> dodgy drawings!
>>
>> Graham.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Graham and Malcolm,
>>>
>>> Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the waterway
>>> coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything
>>> works.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Graham Jones
>> Hartlepool, UK.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Graham Jones]

Hi Folks,

Thanks to Chris for reminding me, I have updated my canals / waterways map -
it should now be up to date as of the early hours of this morning (
http://maps.webhop.net/canals).

It looks like good progress from the last update - much more like a network
now, but there are still some gaps!

The things I noticed from my part of the country is that the River Tyne is
not rendered - must not have a 'boat=yes' tag - does anyone know how far up
the river you can get a boat to add this?
Conversely I am not convinced that the river Wear upstream of Durham is
navigable - I thought it got pretty shallow at Shincliffe?   Also there is
the problem of a Weir, so maybe there are only bits of it downstream that
are navigable too?

This is still running on the computer in my living room so will seem slow
because of my internet connection, but I am working on getting minutely
updating working on a little virtual server, which will seem better from the
outside world - I will be looking for suggestions for other visualisations
to include once I have got that working (adding more is very easy once it is
working), so please think of anything else you would like to see.

Graham.

On 19 January 2011 21:28, Graham Jones  wrote:

> Thank you all for your comments.
>
> Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks
> altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just
> north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a
> 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable
> canal?
>
> I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level 10.
>  Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals, using the
> mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml..
>
> Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because my
> database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import the
> whole uk, which takes a few hours...
>
> Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included?
>
> What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have
> locks at the moment, because I remember these being the interesting part of
> canal boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would like
> to draw an icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my
> dodgy drawings!
>
> Graham.
>
>
>
> On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Graham and Malcolm,
>>
>> Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the waterway
>> coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything
>> works.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Graham Jones
> Hartlepool, UK.
>
>


-- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Graham Jones]

Thanks - I think it does show that I need to render to higher zoom levels -
it is nice to zoom in more before switching to Potlatch to reduce the load
time, but you lose my overlay tiles first.

I am importing the UK OSM database into a little virtual server at the
moment - once that is done I will move the canal map to that to make the
response quicker, and render down to zoom level 15 or so - I might make the
last few zoom levels render-on-demand to save disk space...

Graham.

On 20 January 2011 22:29, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

>
> Graham Jones wrote:
> > I think I have got an alternative way of doing it - the Openlayers
> > Permalink control can take a 'base' parameter, which is the url
> > base that it links to (like http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit).
> > It is working on http://maps.webhop.net/canals now.
>
> That works brilliantly - I was able to spot that the Soar in north
> Leicester
> (my old stomping ground...) was missing a boat=yes and add it instantly.
> Thanks!
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5945684.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
>



-- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Graham Jones wrote:
> I think I have got an alternative way of doing it - the Openlayers 
> Permalink control can take a 'base' parameter, which is the url 
> base that it links to (like http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit).
> It is working on http://maps.webhop.net/canals now.

That works brilliantly - I was able to spot that the Soar in north Leicester
(my old stomping ground...) was missing a boat=yes and add it instantly.
Thanks!

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5945684.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] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Graham Jones]

Another cause of 'odd gaps' seems to be large rivers that have riverbanks
drawn (waterway=riverbank), but no way down the middle tagged as
waterway=river.

I am minded to keep the rendering unchanged on the grounds that the wiki
says it should have the waterway=river way (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank).
Does that sound reasonable, or should I render the riverbanks and not worry
about the river way?

Graham.

On 20 January 2011 10:04, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

>
> Graham Jones wrote:
> > I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network now.
> > There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.
>
> That's putting it mildly. :)
>
> I knew our waterway coverage was erratic but I hadn't realised it was
> _that_
> poor. Navigable rivers are particularly sporadic (very little of the Thames
> appears to be tagged as boat=yes). And as for the Macclesfield Canal's new
> western extension, complete with cycleway...
>
> Lots to do!
>
> Graham - could you add a permalink that goes either to the equivalent view
> on osm.org, or straight to osm.org/edit?lat=...&lon=...&zoom=... ?
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943138.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
>



-- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Graham Jones]

Tom, Richard,
I think I have got an alternative way of doing it - the Openlayers Permalink
control can take a 'base' parameter, which is the url base that it links to
(like http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit).

It is working on http://maps.webhop.net/canals now.

Not as pretty as the main OSM version or your openecomaps one though!

Graham.

On 20 January 2011 21:47, Tom Chance  wrote:

> I used the OpenStreetMap homepage code for inspiration and wrote a stripped
> down version for this page:
>
> http://www.openecomaps.co.uk/map.php
>
> Basically you give the link an ID, get the relevant variables from
> OpenLayers and register events to update the link every time the map
> changes.
>
> (by the way that site isn't quite
> "launched" yet).
>
> Best wishes,
> Tom
>
>
> On 20 January 2011 21:26, Graham Jones  wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>> A direct link to an editor would be really neat...Do you know how to do
>> it?
>> I suppose I need to use javascript to detect that you have clicked on the
>> 'edit' link, then update the link to be the map origin?
>> Or is there an easy way - not sure how the 'Permalink' thing works - I'll
>> dig through the OpenLayers code to look for it!
>>
>> Graham.
>>
>> On 20 January 2011 10:04, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Graham Jones wrote:
>>> > I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network
>>> now.
>>> > There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.
>>>
>>> That's putting it mildly. :)
>>>
>>> I knew our waterway coverage was erratic but I hadn't realised it was
>>> _that_
>>> poor. Navigable rivers are particularly sporadic (very little of the
>>> Thames
>>> appears to be tagged as boat=yes). And as for the Macclesfield Canal's
>>> new
>>> western extension, complete with cycleway...
>>>
>>> Lots to do!
>>>
>>> Graham - could you add a permalink that goes either to the equivalent
>>> view
>>> on osm.org, or straight to osm.org/edit?lat=...&lon=...&zoom=... ?
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943138.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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Graham Jones
>> Hartlepool, UK.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>



-- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Tom Chance]

I used the OpenStreetMap homepage code for inspiration and wrote a stripped
down version for this page:

http://www.openecomaps.co.uk/map.php

Basically you give the link an ID, get the relevant variables from
OpenLayers and register events to update the link every time the map
changes.

(by the way that site isn't quite
"launched" yet).

Best wishes,
Tom


On 20 January 2011 21:26, Graham Jones  wrote:

> Richard,
> A direct link to an editor would be really neat...Do you know how to do it?
> I suppose I need to use javascript to detect that you have clicked on the
> 'edit' link, then update the link to be the map origin?
> Or is there an easy way - not sure how the 'Permalink' thing works - I'll
> dig through the OpenLayers code to look for it!
>
> Graham.
>
> On 20 January 2011 10:04, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
>>
>> Graham Jones wrote:
>> > I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network
>> now.
>> > There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.
>>
>> That's putting it mildly. :)
>>
>> I knew our waterway coverage was erratic but I hadn't realised it was
>> _that_
>> poor. Navigable rivers are particularly sporadic (very little of the
>> Thames
>> appears to be tagged as boat=yes). And as for the Macclesfield Canal's new
>> western extension, complete with cycleway...
>>
>> Lots to do!
>>
>> Graham - could you add a permalink that goes either to the equivalent view
>> on osm.org, or straight to osm.org/edit?lat=...&lon=...&zoom=... ?
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943138.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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Graham Jones
> Hartlepool, UK.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>


-- 
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] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Graham Jones]

Richard,
A direct link to an editor would be really neat...Do you know how to do it?
I suppose I need to use javascript to detect that you have clicked on the
'edit' link, then update the link to be the map origin?
Or is there an easy way - not sure how the 'Permalink' thing works - I'll
dig through the OpenLayers code to look for it!

Graham.

On 20 January 2011 10:04, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

>
> Graham Jones wrote:
> > I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network now.
> > There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.
>
> That's putting it mildly. :)
>
> I knew our waterway coverage was erratic but I hadn't realised it was
> _that_
> poor. Navigable rivers are particularly sporadic (very little of the Thames
> appears to be tagged as boat=yes). And as for the Macclesfield Canal's new
> western extension, complete with cycleway...
>
> Lots to do!
>
> Graham - could you add a permalink that goes either to the equivalent view
> on osm.org, or straight to osm.org/edit?lat=...&lon=...&zoom=... ?
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943138.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
>



-- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Andy Mabbett]

The Lichfield and Hatherton canal aqueduct, over the M6 Toll, is a
case in point:

 http://www.lhcrt.org.uk/aqueduct.htm

On 20 January 2011 10:48, Lester Caine  wrote:
> James Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks
>>> altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just
>>> north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a
>>> 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable
>>> canal?
>>
>> Varies a lot, there's one that passes near my house and there's no sign
>> that it ever existed, it's route has been tarmaced over forms part of a
>> residential street. Further out of town it varies from a small gap between
>> hedgerows (again not easily recognisable as a canal) to a ditch, to sections
>> that still contain water and remnants of locks. From aerial photographs; the
>> breaks in developments caused by the canal make the route very obvious.
>
> Having seen the state of SOME of the canals that are now reopened it's a
> little difficult to say that just because you can't currently see it that it
> will not re-appear at some stage. It's a little like the disused railways.
> If some group decide that it's worth reopening then the historic data of
> where it used to run may well be of use.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Malcolm Herring]

On 20/01/2011 13:56, martyn wrote:

In my region, The River Stort navigation, from Roydon up to the limit of
navigation to Bishops Stortford, is mostly tagged waterway=river.

But this is frequently navigated, has locks, a towpath, and is wide
enough for vessels wider than the traditional narrowboats.

I'm not a waterway specialist compared to some contributors here -
would this be the most complete set of tags? What else would you add ?

waterway=canal
name=River Stort Navigation
boat=yes

cheers, Martyn


If it is a river (as in your example), then waterway=river. Some 
waterways with "xxx Navigation" names are often mixtures of original 
rivers and cuts (canals) to circumvent unnavigable sections (weirs, 
rapids, etc). Use the waterway=canal on those sections.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Malcolm Herring]

On 20/01/2011 05:59, Graham Jones wrote:

I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network now.
There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.



The gaps are most likely due to missing boat=yes tags. I noticed that 
one river I mapped had a couple of gaps & sure enough, no boat=yes.


I encourage all riparian mappers to re-visit their efforts & 
differentiate between navigable & non-navigable waterways. This applies 
to canals as well as rivers, since many neglected or disused canals are 
unnavigable even though they may still be wet.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[martyn]

In my region, The River Stort navigation, from Roydon up to the limit of 
navigation to Bishops Stortford, is mostly tagged waterway=river.


But this is frequently navigated, has locks, a towpath, and is wide 
enough for vessels wider than the traditional narrowboats.


I'm not a waterway specialist compared to some contributors here -
would this be the most complete set of tags?  What else would you add ?

waterway=canal
name=River Stort Navigation
boat=yes

cheers, Martyn

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I note on the Natural England condition statement that they use the  phrase 
"Residual Waterway", so perhaps we can make use of something like  
canal=residual. 


Jonathan Briggs did a nice article on the  ecology of the Montgomery Canal in 
British Wildlife a few years ago (BW,  17:401-410, 2006 IIRC).




From: Richard Fairhurst 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thu, 20 January, 2011 12:21:58
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)


Someoneelse wrote:
> I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top 
> bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think 
> the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything.

From WW's most recent article on the Cromford:


And indeed, since 2005 (WW January 2006), FCC do run occasional horse-drawn
boat trips there. (Unpowered boats obviously create less disturbance to
vegetation in the channel - similar reasoning is behind the 2mph limit on a
stretch of the Montgomery IIRC.)

So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would be
something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no. I'll leave it
to the wikifiddlers to decide what key/value pair works for that. :)

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943533.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



  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[SomeoneElse]

On 20/01/2011 12:21, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would 
be something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no.


Presumably drawn through the tunnel near Crich by pit pony? There aren't 
too many of those in Derbyshire these days - maybe a couple of 
rottweilers from the dodgier bits of Ripley would have to do instead?


Cheers,
Andy


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Someoneelse wrote:
> I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top 
> bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think 
> the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything.

From WW's most recent article on the Cromford:

"As a gateway to the World Heritage Site, this [Ambergate] could offer ample
moorings for permanent and  visiting boats. Boaters could possibly proceed
for the final five miles to Cromford through the SSSI section by horse-drawn
boat, for which only dredging would be required. Such dredging is equally
essential to restore the quality of the currently much deteriorated SSSI.
Having struggled for finance for this highly scenic and very popular five
miles of canal, Derbyshire County Council was recently awarded £800,000
towards bank stabilisation, structural improvements and dredging."

And indeed, since 2005 (WW January 2006), FCC do run occasional horse-drawn
boat trips there. (Unpowered boats obviously create less disturbance to
vegetation in the channel - similar reasoning is behind the 2mph limit on a
stretch of the Montgomery IIRC.)

So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would be
something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no. I'll leave it
to the wikifiddlers to decide what key/value pair works for that. :)

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943533.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] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[SomeoneElse]

On 20/01/2011 11:10, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:


Certainly the Grantham Canal is a good place to clarify how to tag 
canals in various states of disuse: ...





... Cromford Canal from Cromford to Ambergate ...



Mea culpa for parts of both of those.  I think that I used "canoeable" 
(i.e. having some water in it) as indicating whether it was a "canal"or 
a "derelict_canal".  Neither appear to be regularly used/usable for 
canal boats now; in the case of the Grantham canal as has already been 
mentioned it's piped under some roads and has trees growing in it in 
places; in the case of that stretch of the Cromford canal much of what 
the nature reserve now preserves would be obliterated if you took a boat 
down it.


Suggestions for improved disused canal tagging are welcome - something 
that distinguishes between "not usable by traditional canal boats", "has 
no water in it" and "path still clearly visible as an indentation in the 
landscape".  In the case of the Grantham canal outside of Nottingham 
there's probably enough descriptive information there to retag it 
without a visit if someone's keen.




On 20/01/2011 11:20, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

The modern-day Friends of the Cromford Canal occasionally run boat trips
there, I think.


I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top bit 
(just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think the 
bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything.


I do see occasional leaflets in pubs from the Friends of the Cromford 
Canal, suggesting rejoining some of the sections, but the size of the 
task ahead of them is substantial.


In OSM there are disused sections of that still mapped from NPE I 
believe, so there's more to be done there too.


Cheers,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jerry Clough wrote:
> I'd also second TomH: there are lots of things showing as navigable which
> look 
> odd: Cromford Canal from Cromford to Ambergate (now a nature reserve, and  
> possibly an SSSI)

That is navigable, and navigated, though not as much as it was when first
restored in the 1980s (in conjunction with the then canal society, which
subsequently went pop in slightly suspect circumstances).

The modern-day Friends of the Cromford Canal occasionally run boat trips
there, I think. There are quite a few navigable waterways which are SSSIs -
e.g. the parts of the Montgomery and the Rochdale infested by the infamous
floating water plantain. ;)

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943386.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] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Brian Prangle]

It would be good to have leisure=marina then Gas Street Basin (and others)
in Birmingham would render

On 20 January 2011 11:11, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 20/01/11 11:09, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
>
> > I went with canal + boat=no for the New River as it's man-made but
> non-navigable.
>
> Well the New River is always fun - as the signs say, it's neither New
> nor a River ;-)
>
> Whether it's a canal is an interesting question... I think the best
> description I heard anybody come up with was that it was an aqueduct but
> it's hardly a typical aqueduct.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
> ___
> 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] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Tom Hughes]

On 20/01/11 11:09, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:

> I went with canal + boat=no for the New River as it's man-made but 
> non-navigable.

Well the New River is always fun - as the signs say, it's neither New
nor a River ;-)

Whether it's a canal is an interesting question... I think the best
description I heard anybody come up with was that it was an aqueduct but
it's hardly a typical aqueduct.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

There are also long sections of the Grantham Canal which are Nature  Reserves: 
there's a fantastic stretch in the Vale of Belvoir with masses  of interesting 
aquatic vegetation and in late May, early June a  remarkable range of 
dragonflies and damselflies. There are some  conflicts in tagging between this 
sort of disused canal and its current  use: although I haven't investigated 
them 
recently. I think the main one  was that a disused canal full of water is very 
different from one which  is dry: but from a naturalists perspective the fact 
that the water body  is a canal rather than catch-all natural=water is 
significant.

There  are several other stretches of disused/abandoned canal also around  
Nottingham, these include: the disused Derby Canal (very apparent at its  W end 
near Swarkestone,  less apparent at its E end near Sandiacre), stretches of the 
Nottingham  Canal (some of which is occupied by the culverted River Leen, and 
lock 6  (I think) is used by NCN 6 to pass under the ring-road), the Nutbush  
Canal, the E end of the Cromford Canal, and some very early canals  serving 
collieries which have completely disappeared. I don't propose to  map any of 
these in the near future, but there is plenty of remaining  infrastructure for 
the observant to find. 


Certainly the Grantham  Canal is a good place to clarify how to tag canals in 
various states of  disuse: potentially to satisfy differing wants of, inter 
alia,  the waterway map completists, waterway restoration types, cyclists,  
walkers, fishermen (not many in OSM I think) and naturalists.

I'd  also second TomH: there are lots of things showing as navigable which  
look 
odd: Cromford Canal from Cromford to Ambergate (now a nature  reserve, and  
possibly an SSSI), the Loddon S of Twyford. The Trent appears to be  
unnavigable 
between Nottingham and Newark. There are several fast  flowing rivers in 
Scotland deemed navigable, like the one to the W of  Loch Tulla. I presume that 
we have a consensus that boat=yes does not  included canoes, paper boats, pooh 
sticks, or even a small rowing boat  or dingy?

Anyway thanks to Chris for persistence in asking the  question, and Graham for 
the visualisation: no doubt a few things will  be fixed soon.

Jerry







From: Kev js1982 
To: Graham Jones 
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 19 January, 2011 22:27:59
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)


The Grantham canal round here varies in quality from
Being in a pipe under the road for a big stretch
Looking like a normal canal but with all the locks missing/ damaged
Drained of water and full of weeds
Looking like a normal canal but full of algee and other stagnet strenches
Oh, and most paths/roads cross on the level with nothing more than a pipe 
underneath.
The tow paths are generally navigatable by foot, and from plunger ( I think) to 
the trent by bike in all weathers ( if you ignore the a46 Fosseway crossing 
which is closed to allow the construction of a dual carridgeway)
On 19 Jan 2011 21:29, "Graham Jones"  wrote:
>
>Thank you all for your comments.
>
>
>Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks 
>altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just 
>north 
>of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a 'disused' 
>canal 
>- does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable canal?   
>
>
>I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level 10. 
> Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals, using the 
>mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml..
>
>
>Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because my 
>database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import the whole 
>uk, which takes a few hours...
>
>
>Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included?
>
>
>What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have locks 
>at 
>the moment, because I remember these being the interesting part of canal 
>boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would like to draw 
>an 
>icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my dodgy drawings!
>
>
>Graham.
>
>
>
>
>
>On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss  wrote:
>
>Thanks Graham and Malcolm,
>>
>>Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the waterway 
>>coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything works.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>___
>>Talk-GB mailing list
>>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Graham Jones
>Har

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[kevin]

I was working on this very area this morning - now (I think) much improved.

I went with canal + boat=no for the New River as it's man-made but 
non-navigable.

Kevin

--Original Message--
From: Tom Hughes
To: Richard Fairhurst
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 20 Jan 2011 10:50
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

On 20/01/11 10:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> Graham Jones wrote:
>> I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network now.
>> There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.
> 
> That's putting it mildly. :)
> 
> I knew our waterway coverage was erratic but I hadn't realised it was _that_
> poor. Navigable rivers are particularly sporadic (very little of the Thames
> appears to be tagged as boat=yes). And as for the Macclesfield Canal's new
> western extension, complete with cycleway...

On the other side of the coin we appear to think the New River is
navigable, which I'd love to see somebody try...

We also doesn't seem to know the difference between the Lee Navigation
and the non-navigable channels of the Lea. The Stort however seems to
become non-navigable above Roydon despite us knowing it has locks there.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Tom Hughes]

On 20/01/11 10:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> Graham Jones wrote:
>> I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network now.
>> There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.
> 
> That's putting it mildly. :)
> 
> I knew our waterway coverage was erratic but I hadn't realised it was _that_
> poor. Navigable rivers are particularly sporadic (very little of the Thames
> appears to be tagged as boat=yes). And as for the Macclesfield Canal's new
> western extension, complete with cycleway...

On the other side of the coin we appear to think the New River is
navigable, which I'd love to see somebody try...

We also doesn't seem to know the difference between the Lee Navigation
and the non-navigable channels of the Lea. The Stort however seems to
become non-navigable above Roydon despite us knowing it has locks there.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Lester Caine]

James Davis wrote:

Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks 
altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just north 
of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a 'disused' canal 
- does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable canal?

Varies a lot, there's one that passes near my house and there's no sign that it 
ever existed, it's route has been tarmaced over forms part of a residential 
street. Further out of town it varies from a small gap between hedgerows (again 
not easily recognisable as a canal) to a ditch, to sections that still contain 
water and remnants of locks. From aerial photographs; the breaks in 
developments caused by the canal make the route very obvious.


Having seen the state of SOME of the canals that are now reopened it's a little 
difficult to say that just because you can't currently see it that it will not 
re-appear at some stage. It's a little like the disused railways. If some group 
decide that it's worth reopening then the historic data of where it used to run 
may well be of use.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Bob Kerr]

Hi,
On some rivers upstream there are points tagged for canoeing.
see
http://whitewater.quaker.eu.org/
I'm not sure if this will effect your work but I thought I should let you know.
The tags in this case are placed on the nodes inside the waterway=riverbank way
Cheers
Bob
--- On Thu, 20/1/11, James Davis  wrote:

From: James Davis 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Thursday, 20 January, 2011, 10:07


On 19 Jan 2011, at 21:28, Graham Jones wrote:

> Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks 
> altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just 
> north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a 
> 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable 
> canal?

Varies a lot, there's one that passes near my house and there's no sign that it 
ever existed, it's route has been tarmaced over forms part of a residential 
street. Further out of town it varies from a small gap between hedgerows (again 
not easily recognisable as a canal) to a ditch, to sections that still contain 
water and remnants of locks. From aerial photographs; the breaks in 
developments caused by the canal make the route very obvious.

James



___
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] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[James Davis]

On 19 Jan 2011, at 21:28, Graham Jones wrote:

> Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks 
> altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just 
> north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a 
> 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable 
> canal?

Varies a lot, there's one that passes near my house and there's no sign that it 
ever existed, it's route has been tarmaced over forms part of a residential 
street. Further out of town it varies from a small gap between hedgerows (again 
not easily recognisable as a canal) to a ditch, to sections that still contain 
water and remnants of locks. From aerial photographs; the breaks in 
developments caused by the canal make the route very obvious.

James



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Graham Jones wrote:
> I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network now.
> There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.

That's putting it mildly. :)

I knew our waterway coverage was erratic but I hadn't realised it was _that_
poor. Navigable rivers are particularly sporadic (very little of the Thames
appears to be tagged as boat=yes). And as for the Macclesfield Canal's new
western extension, complete with cycleway...

Lots to do!

Graham - could you add a permalink that goes either to the equivalent view
on osm.org, or straight to osm.org/edit?lat=...&lon=...&zoom=... ?

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943138.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] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Ed Loach]

Thanks to your rendering, I find I used the lock gate tag for a
sluice gate after some dim and distance past survey (Feb 2009). Is
there a better tag available these days?

 

Ed

 

From: Graham Jones [mailto:grahamjones...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 20 January 2011 05:59
To: Kev js1982
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

 

I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network
now.
There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.

Graham

from my phone

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Graham Jones]

I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network now.
There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.

Graham

from my phone

On 19 Jan 2011 22:28, "Kev js1982"  wrote:

The Grantham canal round here varies in quality from
Being in a pipe under the road for a big stretch
Looking like a normal canal but with all the locks missing/ damaged
Drained of water and full of weeds
Looking like a normal canal but full of algee and other stagnet strenches
Oh, and most paths/roads cross on the level with nothing more than a pipe
underneath.

The tow paths are generally navigatable by foot, and from plunger ( I think)
to the trent by bike in all weathers ( if you ignore the a46 Fosseway
crossing which is closed to allow the construction of a dual carridgeway)


>
> On 19 Jan 2011 21:29, "Graham Jones"  wrote:
>
> Thank you all for yo...
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Kev js1982]

The Grantham canal round here varies in quality from
Being in a pipe under the road for a big stretch
Looking like a normal canal but with all the locks missing/ damaged
Drained of water and full of weeds
Looking like a normal canal but full of algee and other stagnet strenches
Oh, and most paths/roads cross on the level with nothing more than a pipe
underneath.

The tow paths are generally navigatable by foot, and from plunger ( I think)
to the trent by bike in all weathers ( if you ignore the a46 Fosseway
crossing which is closed to allow the construction of a dual carridgeway)

On 19 Jan 2011 21:29, "Graham Jones"  wrote:

Thank you all for your comments.

Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks
altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just
north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a
'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable
canal?

I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level 10.
 Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals, using the
mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml..

Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because my
database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import the
whole uk, which takes a few hours...

Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included?

What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have locks
at the moment, because I remember these being the interesting part of canal
boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would like to
draw an icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my dodgy
drawings!

Graham.



On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss  wrote:

> Thanks Graham and Malcolm,
>
> Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the waterway
> coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything
> works.
>
> Chris
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Chris Moss]

On 19/01/11 21:28, Graham Jones wrote:

What points of interest should a waterways map highlight


In a rough order: tunnels, swing bridges, boatyards (marinas), mooring 
points, water points, pumpouts, aqueducts, bridges, pubs.


That's just a wish list...

Chris

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Graham Jones]

Thank you all for your comments.

Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks
altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just
north of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a
'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable
canal?

I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level 10.
 Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals, using the
mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml..

Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because my
database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import the
whole uk, which takes a few hours...

Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included?

What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have locks
at the moment, because I remember these being the interesting part of canal
boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would like to
draw an icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my dodgy
drawings!

Graham.



On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss  wrote:

> Thanks Graham and Malcolm,
>
> Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the waterway
> coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything
> works.
>
> Chris
>
>
> ___
> 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