[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

SK53 sk53.osm at gmail.com
Sun Oct 25 20:47:02 UTC 2015

As I said earlier finding the bounds of NRs is actually quite difficult.

I sort of know roughly the bounds of Lathkill Dale at the Over Haddon end,
but not how it finishes higher up. I believe this and many other NNRs in
the same area are now lumped together as Derbyshire Dales NNR. One thing is
absolutely certain: signage is very likely to be out-of-date or in conflict.


On 25 October 2015 at 18:56, ajt1047 at gmail.com <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/10/2015 14:42, Brian Prangle wrote (in a slightly different order):
> > Do we need to tag Natura 2000 SACs and SPAs?  I've looked at the
> protected_area wiki page and quite
> > frankly lost the will to live.
> :)
> I'm guessing that, a bit like rights of way, the tagging will sort itself
> out.  Actually working out the bounds of the reserve itself is the hard bit.
> Only today I walked past one "welcome to Lathkill Dale NNR" sign, then at
> some point exited (no sign) and then entered again past a different
> "welcome to Lathkill Dale NNR" sign.  It's a familiar problem - I went path
> several signs on the south wales coast earlier this month whether one side
> of a reserve was clearly marked but the other wasn't.  You could I suppose
> align to walls, fences and hedges (and in extremis the sea), but in many
> cases there are several plausible possibilities for boundaries.  Sometimes
> there's a "sign at each corner" like at
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53745064 , but it's rare.
> > and the Natural England OpenData source and there seems to be a
> significant amount of data inaccuracy in
> > my local area
> Is that actually genuine, OS IP free, proper OGL licensed "Open" data?  At
> the start of the month earlier in this thread Jerry commented:
> > There are Natural England datasets for National NRs, Local NRs and
> SSSIs. I think these are under OGL these
> > days, but like PRoW or Land Registry inspire data, they may incorporate
> OS MasterMap data, and I have
> > always treated them as not fully open.
> I had assumed that Natural England datasets such as these (also access
> land, see
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-August/thread.html#17638
> ) were at the very least not "whiter than white" for the reasons discussed
> in that thread.  Fine for a uMap to survey and monitor progress by, but not
> for OSM itself.
> ... and of course there's the issue of "a significant amount of data
> inaccuracy" in the available datasets that you mention, which is another
> issue entirely.
> Cheers,
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20151025/611151c7/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list