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

[Michael Collinson]

At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>Henry Gomersall [mailto:heng at cantab.net] wrote:
> >Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
> >To: Peter Miller
> >Cc: Talk GB
> >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?
> >
> >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.

A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing Bing 
imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's riverbanks 
derived from OS data indicates that very frequently  the OS are not 
tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water (clear river 
channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the riverbank or 
where the rough "verge" meets pasture land.

Mike