Adjacent nature reserves

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Adjacent nature reserves

Martin Wynne
At this location there is a large area of open sandy heath, forming a
nature reserve:

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.3716/-2.2816

In fact it is two nature reserves side by side with different names and
ownership. One is charity-owned and managed by the county Wildlife
Trust, the other is owned and managed by the local District Council.

On the ground the boundary between them is barely visible, just odd bits
of old fencing in places, and footpaths criss-cross between them. The
visitor material tends to combine them as a single nature reserve, and
that is how most folks think of them:

 
http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields

The council's web site refers to them linking "seamlessly":

 
https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/rifle-range-sssi.aspx

But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold
green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could
be misleading for visitors.

Here's a picture of the boundary, running approx from 8 o'clock to 2
o'clock:

  http://85a.uk/rifle_range_boundary_960x448.jpg

Is there a better way to map this? If I combine them as a single nature
reserve, is there a way to name the two parts of it separately? Is there
a way to show the common boundary less prominently?

Thanks,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Gareth L
The bounds of an area don’t mean there’s a barrier there. But a nature reserve does render on that map in a similar way to a tree line or hedgerow would be rendered.

I’d leave it as it is. The problem is appears to how it renders, rather than how it is mapped. It could be totally fine with a different tile set. It’d be better to try and get the standard Osm map rendering scheme tweaked. They do it fairly frequently.

Gareth

> On 5 Jun 2019, at 18:56, Martin Wynne <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> At this location there is a large area of open sandy heath, forming a nature reserve:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.3716/-2.2816
>
> In fact it is two nature reserves side by side with different names and ownership. One is charity-owned and managed by the county Wildlife Trust, the other is owned and managed by the local District Council.
>
> On the ground the boundary between them is barely visible, just odd bits of old fencing in places, and footpaths criss-cross between them. The visitor material tends to combine them as a single nature reserve, and that is how most folks think of them:
>
> http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields
>
> The council's web site refers to them linking "seamlessly":
>
> https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/rifle-range-sssi.aspx
>
> But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could be misleading for visitors.
>
> Here's a picture of the boundary, running approx from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock:
>
> http://85a.uk/rifle_range_boundary_960x448.jpg
>
> Is there a better way to map this? If I combine them as a single nature reserve, is there a way to name the two parts of it separately? Is there a way to show the common boundary less prominently?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne
5 Jun 2019, 19:55 by [hidden email]:
But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could be misleading for visitors.
Note that maps are not aerial images - there is often significant level of abstraction and
especially for borders there is often nothing visible on the ground.

This rendering was used as compromise between several different problem.

Note also that the same styling applies to all nature reserves across the world.
Is there a better way to map this?
There are two nature reserves there, right?
If I combine them as a single nature reserve
Is there a way to show the common boundary less prominently?
This is on side of renderers. This one has repository at
where proposals to improve it or pull requests with code improving it may be submitted.

Though again, the same rendering rules are applied globally, and for every single one
there are cases where it fails horribly. Improving one specific place may have really bad
results elsewhere.

On the data side - I would consider tagging borders on the shared way (mapping boundaries
as multipolygons), currently each nature reserve is a separate way.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/694760748#map=17/52.37217/-2.28169

(it would not change rendering, at least on default OSM map)


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Warin
I am reminded of at least one single way I have edited (there could be more, it was some time ago)... it is a single way used for;

boundary of 2 states of Australia
boundary of 2 councils
boundary of 2 National Parks - note that these 'National Parks' are administered by the individual states and have different rules...

All of these are separate relations... with quite a few shared ways. Messy, but done.

The rendering looks good to me.

While you may have 2 nature reserves adjacent they both need to be on the map, so they can be individually found. So they should not be combined in the data base.

Rendering of boundaries of the same type .. but with less prominence?
Would not be high on my priority list... but doable. The render could should them with the same prominence as one single boundary.
Councils and countries usually share boundaries so they would have some thought to combining there boundary rendering.
There must be similar things between England/Scotland/Wales...


On 06/06/19 18:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
5 Jun 2019, 19:55 by [hidden email]:
But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could be misleading for visitors.
Note that maps are not aerial images - there is often significant level of abstraction and
especially for borders there is often nothing visible on the ground.

This rendering was used as compromise between several different problem.

Note also that the same styling applies to all nature reserves across the world.
Is there a better way to map this?
There are two nature reserves there, right?
If I combine them as a single nature reserve
sounds like tagging for the renderer - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
Is there a way to show the common boundary less prominently?
This is on side of renderers. This one has repository at
where proposals to improve it or pull requests with code improving it may be submitted.

Though again, the same rendering rules are applied globally, and for every single one
there are cases where it fails horribly. Improving one specific place may have really bad
results elsewhere.

On the data side - I would consider tagging borders on the shared way (mapping boundaries
as multipolygons), currently each nature reserve is a separate way.

(it would not change rendering, at least on default OSM map)



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Martin Wynne
Thanks for the comments.

There are in fact 3 adjacent nature reserves with different names and
ownerships.

It's possible to see the property boundaries on old maps, but after
visiting the site again yesterday I can find little remaining physical
evidence of the boundaries, with many footpaths crossing between them.

The web sites refer to them being seamlessly linked together with
connecting footpaths.

So I have changed the OSM mapping to show a single nature reserve, with
the individual reserve names applied to the land parcels within it:

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3647/-2.2802

This seems a better way of showing what is actually on the ground for
visitors.

 
http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields

 
https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/burlish-top.aspx

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Rob Nickerson
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne
Hi Martin,

I echo Gareth, Mateusz and Warin's view that this should have stayed mapped as separate nature reserves. The previous areas would have (hopefully) marked the legal boundary of the individual nature reserves - something which we have now lost. I see for example that the area you have now marked as Burlish Top Nature Reserve is much smaller than it used to be.

Old:

New:

I'm also finding it very difficult to see what you are changing as you have created so many changesets and they all have the same description (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Martin%20Wynne/history#map=13/52.3652/-2.2799). Would it please be possible to create fewer changesets and/or provide more detailed changeset comments.

You may wish to ask Andy to help with reverting this as he will have plenty of experience from his role in the Data Working Group. The fact that it is over many changesets makes it too challenging for me.

Best regards,
Rob

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne



7 Jun 2019, 20:11 by [hidden email]:
It's possible to see the property boundaries on old maps, but after visiting the site again yesterday I can find little remaining physical evidence of the boundaries, with many footpaths crossing between them.

The web sites refer to them being seamlessly linked together with connecting footpaths.

So I have changed the OSM mapping to show a single nature reserve, with the individual reserve names applied to the land parcels within it
So you would also delete it altogether in case where there is no border visible at all for outside way?

This is not how nature reserve mapping is typically done.


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Adam Snape
Hi,

It looks like tagging for the renderer to me. It might look nicer with the standard rendering but in order to get this to look the desired way we now have 2 natural=heaths named  as nature reserves and with operator tags but without nature reserve tags.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 08:50, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:



7 Jun 2019, 20:11 by [hidden email]:
It's possible to see the property boundaries on old maps, but after visiting the site again yesterday I can find little remaining physical evidence of the boundaries, with many footpaths crossing between them.

The web sites refer to them being seamlessly linked together with connecting footpaths.

So I have changed the OSM mapping to show a single nature reserve, with the individual reserve names applied to the land parcels within it
So you would also delete it altogether in case where there is no border visible at all for outside way?

This is not how nature reserve mapping is typically done.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Martin Wynne
> we now have 2 natural=heaths named  as nature reserves and with operator tags but
> without nature reserve tags.

Hi Adam,

But they are now nested within a larger area which does have a nature
reserve tag. Much of the publicity material for this area treats it as a
single nature reserve.

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Warin
On 09/06/19 23:58, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> we now have 2 natural=heaths named  as nature reserves and with
>> operator tags but
>> without nature reserve tags.
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> But they are now nested within a larger area which does have a nature
> reserve tag. Much of the publicity material for this area treats it as
> a single nature reserve.

But the nature reserveS have different names and ownership and should be
tagged as such.

The heath is the common aspect between the two yet this is where the
names and ownership are applied? This is clearly tagging for the render.

And it fails

https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=52.3600&lon=-2.2836
Results in the wood and the combined nature reserve ... but no idea of
which nature reserve applies here.


The two nature reserves should be separate entries as nature reserves -
which is what they are. Truth in tagging should be applied.


--------------------------------------- Quibble
There is also the aspect that the heath has a wood in it .. yet the
heath covers the wood. The heath should be a multipolygon relation with
an inner for the wood....

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Brian Prangle-2
I've changed this back to 3 reserves based on the unanimous opinion against Martin's proposal. The whole area needs simplification to replace multiple overlaid ways with multipolygon relations . I do have some knowledge of the area having done 2 walking surveys there. There is also an SSSI  for part of the site  which I'll need to work on further to see if and how it should be mapped.

regards

Brian

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 01:20, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/06/19 23:58, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> we now have 2 natural=heaths named  as nature reserves and with
>> operator tags but
>> without nature reserve tags.
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> But they are now nested within a larger area which does have a nature
> reserve tag. Much of the publicity material for this area treats it as
> a single nature reserve.

But the nature reserveS have different names and ownership and should be
tagged as such.

The heath is the common aspect between the two yet this is where the
names and ownership are applied? This is clearly tagging for the render.

And it fails

https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=52.3600&lon=-2.2836
Results in the wood and the combined nature reserve ... but no idea of
which nature reserve applies here.


The two nature reserves should be separate entries as nature reserves -
which is what they are. Truth in tagging should be applied.


--------------------------------------- Quibble
There is also the aspect that the heath has a wood in it .. yet the
heath covers the wood. The heath should be a multipolygon relation with
an inner for the wood....

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 21:08, Brian Prangle <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The whole area needs simplification to replace multiple overlaid ways with multipolygon relations.

I'm curious about what you mean here. Are you referring to replacing
(in a simple example) two square closed ways that share a common edge,
with three non-closed ways (two with three segments, and one with one)
and two relations to represent the original two squares? If so, I've
seen this done in various places, but I've never understood the point
it. The two representations are identical in terms of the data, but
the latter requires 2.5 times as many objects and is much more of a
pain to work with in the editors. All to avoid having a common line
segment between two areas -- which doesn't seem to be a particular
problem to me. Are there some advantages that I'm missing?

Thanks,

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

David Woolley
On 27/06/2019 10:49, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> The two representations are identical in terms of the data, but
> the latter requires 2.5 times as many objects and is much more of a
> pain to work with in the editors. All to avoid having a common line
> segment between two areas


I'd certainly say there should be a strong presumption against the use
of relations.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Martin Wynne
In reply to this post by Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)

> seen this done in various places, but I've never understood the point
> it. The two representations are identical in terms of the data, but
> the latter requires 2.5 times as many objects and is much more of a
> pain to work with in the editors.

This happens a lot in my area. Huge areas of "farmland" have been
created as massive multipolygons, which are too big to fit in the iD
editor, and include ways shared with other areas such as equally large
multipolygon woods. It's a pain to split them up without damaging them
where they include areas which should be mapped as meadow, orchard,
scrub, etc., which I much prefer to map as separate closed field areas,
sometimes with their own name.

Likewise several woods are mapped as a single large multipolygon wood
where in fact they are several separate woods each with a *name*. How
can I apply names to parts of a multipolygon?

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Warin
On 27/06/19 22:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

>
>> seen this done in various places, but I've never understood the point
>> it. The two representations are identical in terms of the data, but
>> the latter requires 2.5 times as many objects and is much more of a
>> pain to work with in the editors.
>
> This happens a lot in my area. Huge areas of "farmland" have been
> created as massive multipolygons, which are too big to fit in the iD
> editor, and include ways shared with other areas such as equally large
> multipolygon woods. It's a pain to split them up without damaging them
> where they include areas which should be mapped as meadow, orchard,
> scrub, etc., which I much prefer to map as separate closed field
> areas, sometimes with their own name. area

I am reworking an tree area that I created some time ago .. it is some
300 km long, 40 km wide (186 miles by 25 miles). There are several
similar sized areas that exist in my locally to me. They have to be
mulipolygons as they have holes in them. And people keep adding things
inside them .. that are also holes in them (they usually omit making the
hole, so an added car parking area will be covered by trees until I
notice).

Map your closed fields .. and simply included them as an inner in the
tree area?

>
> Likewise several woods are mapped as a single large multipolygon wood
> where in fact they are several separate woods each with a *name*. How
> can I apply names to parts of a multipolygon?

You cannot. However for 'my' above tree area there are several National
Parks .. I map those and name them .. they still have the tree area
through them (in parts) but they are still rendered and named on the
map. I separate out the forestry areas as these don't have trees all the
time, so they get landuse=forest rather than natural=trees.


I have other places where there are ways that are in up to 6 relations,
much easier to map them this way for me. They all share this common way,
when they move off this way they then 'only' share the remaining ways
with typically 2 relations, possibly 4.

It is all variable as to what is easiest and suits the local map and the
local mappers.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

David Woolley
On 28/06/2019 00:56, Warin wrote:
> that are also holes in them (they usually omit making the hole, so an
> added car parking area will be covered by trees until I notice

I believe that is a renderer bug.  Generally smaller, fully nested,
areas should cut out holes in incompatible backgrounds without explicit
relations.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adjacent nature reserves

Mateusz Konieczny-3



28 Jun 2019, 02:29 by [hidden email]:
On 28/06/2019 00:56, Warin wrote:
that are also holes in them (they usually omit making the hole, so an added car parking area will be covered by trees until I notice

I believe that is a renderer bug. Generally smaller, fully nested, areas should cut out holes in incompatible backgrounds without explicit relations.
It is not a renderer bug. At least in case of OSM Carto, where tree-covered area is deliberately
working in this way to indicate missing multipolygons. And to support case of tree covered areas of
various types.

Missing explicit holes are not a biggest mapping quality issue. but  it is better to
make it explicit, in almost all cases "is it incompatible area" is not actually obvious and the
same across world. Also processing such data with implicit holes is unreasonably hard.

Though I am still not a fan of using multipolygons where there are no holes in
areas.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb