@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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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:
26 matches
Mail list logo
