[Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrlists at gmail.com
Thu Feb 10 16:56:17 GMT 2011

W.H. Gomersall [mailto:whg21 at hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Henry wrote:
>Sent: 10 February 2011 1:38 PM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Cc: 'Peter Miller'; 'Talk GB'
>Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?
>On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 11:32 +0000, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>> >On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +0000, Peter Miller wrote:
>> >> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
>> >> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a
>> 'bridge
>> >> cleanup' at the same time.
>> >
>> >This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers)
>> and
>> keen to
>> >contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
>> reasonable
>> >approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
>> (bridges
>> >etc) with OSM data?
>> +1
>> If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the
>> additional data for flow direction, bridges and other features are
>> added from survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very
>> functional dataset.
>Further to this point, what happens when there is a river with a tarn inline?
>For example:
>Should there be a continuous flow direction through the tarn?

I'd suggest it shouldn't be necessary, but then it doesn’t hurt to do so either. If the stream is joined to the area way then software interpreting the data can decide how to handle it. It's more of a problem with the features are separate from each other (unless they are placed in a relation of course).


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list