[Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)
Jerry Clough - OSM
sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Jan 20 11:10:24 GMT 2011
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
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.
From: Kev js1982 <osm at kevswindells.eu>
To: Graham Jones <grahamjones139 at gmail.com>
Cc: talk-gb at 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
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" <grahamjones139 at 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!
>On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss <moschris at 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.
>>Talk-GB mailing list
>>Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB