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 <o...@kevswindells.eu> To: Graham Jones <grahamjones...@gmail.com> 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" <grahamjones...@gmail.com> 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 <mosch...@googlemail.com> 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
