[Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Thu Jan 3 11:39:00 GMT 2013
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 06:52 +0000, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> Personally, it is good to see others adding field boundaries.
> I thought it might be useful to describe my current practice with
> regard to mapping field boundaries. In making the following comments,
> I would say that I am interested in landscape maintenance and
> presevation and not just navigation. We have had to fight several
> planning applications in our valley and have won theses based on the
> quality of the landscape. Having good maps of this is important. OSM
> could be useful tool in this context.
> I started mapping field boundaries as a Newbie (I'm not sure when you
> stop being one) about 10 months back. At the time I made some
> enquires on the Newbie mailing list about how to handle field
> boundaries and roads. From this I concluded that you shouldn't join
> field boundaries to roads. I also started mapping the field
> boundaries along roads. The suggestion seemed to be that this should
> be done for completeness. Drawing field boundaries along roads is
> diffcult to do neatly and looks messy at high OSM zoom. However when
> you scale back, the road rendering masks this. It is probably worth
> going to more trouble where main roads are concerned and their line is
> unlikely to be adjusted. In JOSM you can create a parallel way from
> the road which can help.
I am increasingly thinking that in cases like this, we should begin to
map roads as areas. I would leave the road way in the centre, but then
around the road turn the parallel ways into an area and join those to
the hedge way.
I think this will probably look better than hoping the renderer will get
it right at all zoom levels.
I appreciate that this should not be default mapping practice, but once
you are into micromapping an area, then it does seem a logical step.
What do others think?
More information about the Talk-GB