[Talk-GB] Missing Nature Reserves: umap

Gregory nomoregrapes at googlemail.com
Thu Oct 22 10:11:38 UTC 2015


Hi Jerry,

I just came across the quarterly project and your uMap via the Weekly OSM
blog.

It would be nice to have:
* markers where there is a match with OSM (makes me feel good on behalf of
Durham mappers, even if you don't update it).
* names or some other info on the pop-up (help me find it, help me at least
tag on OSM a small area that can be expanded/corrected as I improve the
surrounding area/landuse).

I've been slowly mapping field boundaries around Durham. It's not my
primary interest due to detail & slowness, but I feel it's good data to add
to footpaths. Weather-dependent I could certainly cycle out to confirm
evidence of some nature reserves.

Presumably we'll be able to easily count the nature reserves at New Year
and now the difference in number?
Is anyone tagging their changesets with something like
project=gb_quarterly? Or apparently hashtags in changeset comments is a
thing now.

>From a sunny Durham,
Gregory (LivingWithDragons)




On 5 October 2015 at 15:54, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've had a quick go using the Natural England & Scottish Natural Heritage
> files to identify potentially missing (or missing bits of) Nature Reserves
> in England & Scotland. (Welsh data is definitely not open).
>
> All I did was check to see if the centroid of a nature reserve from one of
> the national datasets fell inside an OSM polygon. Works most of the time,
> but not for the odd funny shaped reserves. The files were polygons so
> complex NRs which are missing appear multiple times (see St Kilda, Rum etc).
>
> National Nature Reserves I've shown in red, Local ones in blue.
> umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/potential-missing-local-nature-reserves-on-osm_55319#10/51.5933/-0.1744
>
> There are a few large ones which it should be easy to sort out (Richmond
> Park for instance), but many others will require a bit of sleuthing to
> identify their boundaries without using the shape files. Personally I'd
> rather see boundaries based on surveys, particularly when the boundary
> corresponds to other on-the-ground features.
>
> Jerry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>


-- 
Gregory
osm at livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20151022/80257ddc/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list