SABRE Maps experiments

[Steven]

The observant amongst members will have noticed that for the last few days, there's another experimental layer appeared on SABRE Maps.

Thanks to Truvelo, a large number of his redrawn plans taken from his visits to archives of various proposals around England have now been georeferenced and added to Maps. I think they're brilliant!

For me, a particular highlight is to use them along with the Map Fader functionality, where you can see what actually transpired instead of these plans, sometimes finding that the gaps left for a road proposal are still there; other times that the growth of a town has completely overwhelmed the proposed line and so it would be impossible to construct today.

Take a look for yourself, and give us your thoughts!

[c2R]

As I've said already in another thread - these are brilliant and well worth a look - particularly, as Steven says, with the use of the map fader.

[Ross Spur]

Excellent presentation. Thanks to all involved for their hard work.

Ian

[Steven]

Another new experiment today, with a map scan kindly donated by FosseWay.

Your clue is that it's on the 1960 One Inch layer - as it's the nearest thing we have to an appropriate layer for the map!

What do you think of it? Should we add more? Should it go somewhere else, maybe even on its own layer?

[c2R]

Another new experiment today, with a map scan kindly donated by FosseWay.

Your clue is that it's on the 1960 One Inch layer - as it's the nearest thing we have to an appropriate layer for the map!

What do you think of it? Should we add more? Should it go somewhere else, maybe even on its own layer?

I like that. I think it makes mose sense to stay on the layer its on... otherwise its layer could be quite lonely... It's interesting to see the differences in style between it and others on the layer....

[Truvelo]

I agree. An isolated outpost like that doesn't really need its own layer.

When using the fader I never realised until now the nearby GSJ is built on reclaimed land.

[Steven]

When using the fader I never realised until now the nearby GSJ is built on reclaimed land.

Neither did I! It really messed with my head when I was georeferencing that part of the map as there was quite a lot that didn't seem to match up.

[Steven]

I've put a new experimental layer online this evening, available in the OS One Inch layer group, from 1976 (yes, really) it's one of the OS Tourist series.

The Tourist series is odd - it's very bitza, at various scales - mostly One Inch in the period we can use, but there is also a Half Inch and a Quarter Inch map - the latter of which (Wales and The Marches) we've had a couple of examples of on the appropriate Quarter Inch layers for some time.

However, what's not really obvious on the Quarter Inch Tourist maps but is massively obvious on the One Inch maps is the different treatment of relief - rather than being primarily contour-based they are much more decorative, and more like the really early Fifth Edition Relief maps. Which means that they clash massively if you try to mix them up with the regular One Inch series, especially in areas where both are released in the same year.

So, I've (temporarily for now, unless people love it) put the North York Moors Revision C/*/*/* online from 1976 (so after the One Inch Seventh series was replaced by the 1:50,000 Landrangers) as it doesn't clash with any non-Tourist sheets so that people can see for themselves what I mean.

Given that there's a number of road changes caught only on Tourist maps and completely missed by the standard One Inch series such as a lovely temporary terminus on the A19 on the uploaded map (and maybe, just maybe the southern temporary terminus of the M6 Penrith Bypass on one of the Lake District revisions... ), they're worth having online.

The question therefore is, should Tourist maps get mixed in with standard One Inch sheets on the annual layer? Or do they clash too much visually and need to be on their own? The best place to compare the two is against the 1958 One Inch layer.

[Nwallace]

How does that work for the copyright, I've got a few of the 1 inch tourist maps which were sold well into the 1980s

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Steven]

How does that work for the copyright, I've got a few of the 1 inch tourist maps which were sold well into the 1980s

It depends on what it says on the bottom of the map! Until about 1979, only major revisions incremented the copyright date which is how we can get away with OS maps that are less than 50 years old - the OS themselves have stated that it's the stated copyright date that's the relevant part, not the actual date of the map.

The full information can be found on this SABRE Wiki page.

[c2R]

There's some lovely A19 upgrades within that one...!

I've got New Forest 1976 which is copyright 1972 - so not long for that now.

As for whether a separate layer or not... I suppose it depends how much overlap there is - on the one hand we don't want really lonely layers, but on the other we don't want to discard relief maps just because we get a non-relief version. The non-relief ones I think are more useful,but the relief ones and tourist ones are works of art!

[Chris Bertram]

Given that there's a number of road changes caught only on Tourist maps and completely missed by the standard One Inch series such as a lovely temporary terminus on the A19 on the uploaded map (and maybe, just maybe the southern temporary terminus of the M6 Penrith Bypass on one of the Lake District revisions... ), they're worth having online.

Well now, looking at the Teesside area, I'm far from convinced of the accuracy of the mapping. The A174 Parkway is on the map, but unnumbered, while the old A174 - immediately renumbered variously B1380, A1032 and A1130 - is still coloured red and retains that number. There are two A171s between the (old) A174 and A1085 - the western one should be unclassified. And I really struggle to remember a time when A19 *actually* terminated at the Parkway roundabout - my memory, hazy as it is, is that it opened all as a piece down to Crathorne. Moving south a bit, Ingleby Cross should be by-passed by this date by A172. And looking at Guisborough, where I used to live, there are some areas of housing that had been there for some time in 1976 that are not represented. There's been some speculative mapmaking at work here, methinks.

Also, the county boundaries reflect the pre-1974 situation, and Cleveland does not exist, whereas the County Borough of Teesside still does.

[Steven]

There's been some speculative mapmaking at work here, methinks.

Possibly, or it's just that the last full revision was 1966 (hence the copyright date). It is officially "reprinted with the addition of new major roads and revised tourist information" so I think it might well be just that it's ten years later than that.

Also, the county boundaries reflect the pre-1974 situation, and Cleveland does not exist, whereas the County Borough of Teesside still does.

Yep, but again that's not surprising as there is no boundary revision listed, so it will be from the 1966 base. Bit poor on the OS's part mind.


There is, of course, a third option along with "same layers as standard" and "different layers to standard" - that of "they're not worth having, given the server space requirements and the small amount of coverage".

[Truvelo]

So does anyone know what the latest OS map is which is out of copyright?

[Steven]

So does anyone know what the latest OS map is which is out of copyright?

It'll be something from 1978-79 where the last full revision was 1969 or before - there's a couple of Tourist maps and a few 1:25k maps in our usual areas of interest that will apply to.

The newest Quarter Inch out of copyright currently is from 1973, One Inch from 1974 and Half Inch from 1976, whilst Route Planning Maps increment with the year.

[jgharston]

Discussing experiments, what would be nice is to be able to overlay the Historic Counties boundaries over other maps, particularly the modern OS mapping.

[Steven]

Discussing experiments, what would be nice is to be able to overlay the Historic Counties boundaries over other maps, particularly the modern OS mapping.

Unfortunately it's not currently possible to overlay anything onto the modern OS mapping, as it uses a totally different methodology to everything else.

However, the Historic Counties layer group puts the county boundaries on top of modern OSM mapping if that's the sort of thing you're looking for? Or do you mean vector overlays, in a similar style to how the GB and Ireland outline works?

[jgharston]

Discussing experiments, what would be nice is to be able to overlay the Historic Counties boundaries over other maps, particularly the modern OS mapping.

...
However, the Historic Counties layer group puts the county boundaries on top of modern OSM mapping if that's the sort of thing you're looking for? Or do you mean vector overlays, in a similar style to how the GB and Ireland outline works?

I want to see the hitoric boundaries overlaid on a map with the current boundaries. I can't work out how the Historic Counties layers would let me do that.

[Steven]

I want to see the hitoric boundaries overlaid on a map with the current boundaries. I can't work out how the Historic Counties layers would let me do that.

Ah, OK, so something like a large version of the maps like on the Highway Authorities pages on the Wiki, such as Stockport Council?

As it stands, it's possible to do that on an individual Highway Authority level (including the two new Northamptonshire authorities due to be in operation in April 2021) by using the "Find" functionality within Maps. That works on everything other than "Modern OS Mapping" IIRC, but remember that there's modern OpenData layers available at both MiniScale and 1:250k.

[Steven]

There is, of course, a third option along with "same layers as standard" and "different layers to standard" - that of "they're not worth having, given the server space requirements and the small amount of coverage".

Are there any more thoughts on extending OSGB Tourist coverage?