Hi Andy, I would like to see as many layers as possible in iD and other editors. The issue, in my opinion, is one of how best to present the available layers (more on that later). So why more layers:
1). More layers = more choice and more potential sources for confirming the presence or absence of something. 2). iD is a general purpose editor. It can be used for OpenHistoricalMap too. 3). We are working to build strong relationships with Local Authorities, and GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums). Often this starts with a simple map layer and builds into something more (for example one local authority has just informed me that they have collected new aerial imagery and it is their hope to make this available to the OSM community). So how do we deal with an overload of map layers? I think it's a tool issue. A). If historic map layer's include a date in their json file, then we can filter by date range. B). Similarly we can highlight the most popular layers. C). We could link in with the wikimaps database of geo-referenced maps so that it is really easy to view those map sheets in the main map editors. So to conclude, I wouldn't remove any layers right now. We know that the Mapbox layer is likely to improve as they acquire and process more data (see their blog), but similarly the old OS layers hosted by OSM provide an alternate to the NLS versions (they may use different year sheets in some places) and keepping them online will help motivate people to scan more historic sheets in. We are thinking of having a scanning party here in the West Midlands! Best wishes, Rob p.s. I'm about to drop 76 OS TownPlans for Scotland into the joint editor github page. I've included a date in their descriptive json files to make (A) above possible in the future. They all include bounding boxes so should only appear if you are editing in those towns.
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
