[Talk-GB] walls versus landuse=field
dudleyibbett at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 30 21:20:40 UTC 2013
Hope is slowly becoming reality in the Peak District. We will eventually end up with a better map than the OS 1:25 because it will also be possible to map the types of barrier, the types of stiles, gates, kissing gates etc.
The current OSM website rendering seems to be geared towards urban environments but hopefully with the developments being walked about this will be improved. It can be difficult to get an overview of field boundary mapping as they don't appear until you use quite high zooms. I have found Mapertive useful in this respect as you can export data, make minor changes to the rendering file and get field boundaries to appear at lower zooms. It helps when you need to start filling in the gaps. You can also colour code to differentiate between wall and fences etc if you want to.
One thing I have found practically when marking field boundaries on the ground is that a single gps waypoint isn't always that convincing if you think a shift in the satellite imagery is required. If you have time, occasionally walking the wall/fence/hedge either side when you pass through it to produce a gps "cross" gives you more confidence with regard to satellite imagery alignment.
Like you, I generally only map field boundaries. I do map scrub as it is a useful navigation feature for walkers. I'm sure others will eventually put in landuse etc but my priority is to produce a walking map.
> From: heng at cantab.net
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:38:14 +0100
> Subject: [Talk-GB] walls versus landuse=field
> One of my little hopes (which I'm very very slowly attacking) is to have
> OSM have all the walls and fences and suchlike to the same standard as
> OS (them being very useful to walkers and suchlike).
> I noticed that lots of fields, for example in
> are shown as closed loops of landuse=field. Clearly walls/fences and
> enclosed fields are somewhat equivalent, but subtly different in terms
> of what they describe (certainly, walls are not always around fields)
> Am I the only one that has been drawing walls and not fields? It's nice
> to have fields as individual logical units, but they're defined by the
> walls, so it strikes me the wall should be the defining characteristic.
> Is this a software problem in that the areas and the features are
> defined independently?
> Fields do at least render, but this seems like a poor reason to me.
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB