Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
Don't forget that because of the Mercator projection we use, a level 20 tile at the equator (like Singapore) shows the same spatial resolution as a level 19 tile at latitudes near 60 (N or S, like Helsinki). Helsinki at level 19: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=60.17150065552734~24.93957236409227lvl=19dir=0sty=a Singapore at level 20: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=1.3051193488899742~103.83200242146012lvl=20dir=0sty=a Note that the scale bar at the bottom of both views are practically the same. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:52 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I've been thinking about extra colours for super hires imagery and been doing a little research. See the following list of some notable places sorted by their highest Bing zoom levels. Hamburg 20 Vienna 20 London 20 Rome 20 Paris 20 Tokyo 20 Singapore 20 Montreal 20 New York City 20 Denver 20 Los Angeles 20 Kansas City 20 Mexico City 20 Port-au-Prince 20 Munich 19 Helsinki 19 Madrid 19 Warsaw 19 Moscow 19 Istanbul 19 Delhi 19 Tunis 19 Perth 19 Sydney 19 Amsterdam 19 Netherlands rural areas 19 Stockholm 19 Bogota 19 Santiago de Chile 19 Beijing 18 Cape Town 18 Rio de Janeiro 18 Berlin 17 Dublin 17 Damascus 17 Cairo 17 Lagos 17 Germany rural areas 17 Kansas rural areas 17 It seems that all places that have hires imagery of z14 also have it up to z17 (of which z14-z16 are scaled versions, of course). So no need to introduce extra colours for anything below z18. Then the question is: How many colours make sense between z18 and z20 (the absolute maximum)? I think one colour for each zoom level doesn't make sense, because the overall differences in image quality are too stark (compare for example NYC and Santiago de Chile at z19, respectively). So what about: 14-17 high resolution 18-19 very high resolution 20 ultra high resolution ? And... which colours? I would have liked a kind of red-yellow-green scale, but I'd rather keep the green now in order to avoid confusion (old green tiles vs. new green tiles and so on). So I propose a dark green for very hires and a blueish green for ultra hires -- see the screenshot. In anticipation of your comments, ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 09.02.2011 00:53, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Don't forget that because of the Mercator projection we use, a level 20 tile at the equator (like Singapore) shows the same spatial resolution as a level 19 tile at latitudes near 60 (N or S, like Helsinki). ...so someone make a Bing resolution map with 256 different levels...! I get your point, but the single aim of this tool is to help people *get an idea* about where high resolution imagery is available. cheers ant Helsinki at level 19: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=60.17150065552734~24.93957236409227lvl=19dir=0sty=a Singapore at level 20: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=1.3051193488899742~103.83200242146012lvl=20dir=0sty=a Note that the scale bar at the bottom of both views are practically the same. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
For me the tipping point is between 18 and 19. Over Leuven (Belgium) it goes up to 19. 5 kilometers East of Leuven it's only 18 and the difference is enormous. Then again, only a few months ago there was nothing to work from. Cheers, Jo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:59 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: On 09.02.2011 00:53, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Don't forget that because of the Mercator projection we use, a level 20 tile at the equator (like Singapore) shows the same spatial resolution as a level 19 tile at latitudes near 60 (N or S, like Helsinki). ...so someone make a Bing resolution map with 256 different levels...! I get your point, but the single aim of this tool is to help people *get an idea* about where high resolution imagery is available. My actual point is that there's probably no use agonizing how many levels of coloring to consider. :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
What is your definition of hires? Zooming in on my city shows green where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by Bing) Nice bit of code though. Toby On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Hi Toby, On 07.02.2011 16:21, Toby Murray wrote: What is your definition of hires? Zooming in on my city shows green where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by Bing) the definition of hires used in this application is imagery is available at zoom level 14 or more. If you compare coverage areas linked to on the wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them correspond to that definition. I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that isn't implemented... cheers ant Nice bit of code though. Toby On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, antantof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
2011/2/7 ant antof...@gmail.com: What is your definition of hires? the definition of hires used in this application is imagery is available at zoom level 14 or more. If you compare coverage areas linked to on the wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them correspond to that definition. I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that isn't implemented... Yes, I agree that more colours could clarify this. Currently, all areas in Italy seem to be green, where some of the ones I checked offer resolutions up to zoom 17 (not quite the very best imagery imaginable) and others up to 20 (absolutely sufficient for the very most OSM-usecases). I you would use a colour scale for availability at different zoom levels this tool would gain a lot IMHO, without requiring a lot of effort to implement. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Well the jump from 13 to 14 is a pretty big milestone for aerial imagery. You go from rough blobs to distinguishable features. So that does make sense. But yeah, all of the US is just going to be solid green with this definition. Maybe a red/yellow/green scheme? Red means z14, yellow indicates z14-18 and green is for z19+? Or maybe different colors for those colorblind people among us :) Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
On 07.02.2011 16:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, I agree that more colours could clarify this. Currently, all areas in Italy seem to be green, where some of the ones I checked offer resolutions up to zoom 17 (not quite the very best imagery imaginable) and others up to 20 (absolutely sufficient for the very most OSM-usecases). I you would use a colour scale for availability at different zoom levels this tool would gain a lot IMHO, without requiring a lot of effort to implement. Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look. Thanks ant cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
2011/2/7 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com: Well the jump from 13 to 14 is a pretty big milestone for aerial imagery. You go from rough blobs to distinguishable features. So that does make sense. But yeah, all of the US is just going to be solid green with this definition. Maybe a red/yellow/green scheme? Red means z14, yellow indicates z14-18 and green is for z19+? Or maybe different colors for those colorblind people among us :) I would use a scale like #19ff00 Z20+ #99ff00 Z18-19 #ffe500 Z15-17 #ff6600 Z14 or possibly a colour tone for each level. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
2011/2/7 ant antof...@gmail.com: Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look. http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=41.8901512469295lon=12.492339797131855zoom=20 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: Can you give an example of a zoom 20 region? I'd like to have a look. http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=39.294169460227224lon=-94.71799114942492zoom=20 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Hi ant. The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific zoom level availlable instead of 14 or more. 14 may be a threshold of useability in many areas, but for other purposes even 17, 18 or 19 may be the treshold (e.g. mapping of sidewalks, mapping of street lanterns ;) (compare the AeroWest imagery we have (had?) availlable for use in Dortmund). regards Peter P.S.: if possible, an OSM map overlay would be great, too ;) Am 07.02.2011 16:27, schrieb ant: Hi Toby, On 07.02.2011 16:21, Toby Murray wrote: What is your definition of hires? Zooming in on my city shows green where I would consider the imagery to be decent but nothing spectacular. (I think it is mostly just USGS ~1m imagery reused by Bing) the definition of hires used in this application is imagery is available at zoom level 14 or more. If you compare coverage areas linked to on the wiki page, you'll see that almost all of them correspond to that definition. I'm aware that there might be levels of even greater detail, but that isn't implemented... cheers ant Nice bit of code though. Toby On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, antantof...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
On 07.02.2011 17:36, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi ant. The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific zoom level availlable instead of 14 or more. That seems to be what most people wish to see. I'll work on that. cheers ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
2011/2/7 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de: Hi ant. The tool is great, but it would be even greater to have the specific zoom level availlable instead of 14 or more. 14 may be a threshold of useability in many areas, but for other purposes even 17, 18 or 19 may be the treshold (e.g. mapping of sidewalks, mapping of street lanterns ;) (compare the AeroWest imagery we have (had?) availlable for use in Dortmund). Counting the number of white lines in pedestrian crossings :-) Jo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-ja] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage
Tomです。 Ｂｉｎｇ上に、カバーエリアを表示するツールのようです。（たぶん^^;; ズームしていくと、カーバー状況が色分けされていきます。一度、お試しください。 http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=38.38333768390208lon=138.2929893374731zoom=6 みんなで、見て行くと、一気にカバーエリアが色分けされていくんだと思われます。 -- Forwarded message -- From: ant antof...@gmail.com Date: 2011/2/7 Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
[OSM-ja] Ｂｉｎｇ上に、カバーエリアを表示するツール(Was: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage)
東です。 # Gmailだと宛先が変わってもタイトルが変わらないとスレッドが続いてしまうので （英文メールに埋もれてしまうので）タイトルを変えさせて頂きました。 これ便利ですね！ 色分けについていろんな意見が出ていますが、現在のところ 地上の物体が認識できるズームレベル14を境に 赤と緑で塗り分けているようです。 2011/2/8, Tomomichi Hayakawa tom.hayak...@gmail.com: Tomです。 Ｂｉｎｇ上に、カバーエリアを表示するツールのようです。（たぶん^^;; ズームしていくと、カーバー状況が色分けされていきます。一度、お試しください。 http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=38.38333768390208lon=138.2929893374731zoom=6 みんなで、見て行くと、一気にカバーエリアが色分けされていくんだと思われます。 -- Forwarded message -- From: ant antof...@gmail.com Date: 2011/2/7 Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi, I have noticed mappers make various attempts to map coverage of Bing high resolution imagery. Some drawed areas around the imagery and stuffed them into relations, others created xml files etc. etc. (see the wiki page [1]) I thought that a world coverage map wasn't feasible with those methods, so I took Martijn van Exel's Bing analyzer and tweaked in a way that it creates a simple red/green map of hires coverage (green=hires available, red=hires not available). You will see that only a few spots have been rendered so far, but that is due to the way it works: You must zoom in to a hires zoom level in order to trigger the rendering. Try it out: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing as Potlach layer in view mode?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote: Don't have the time to check right now but I think this was not permitted with the license provided. Greets, Floris Oh, too bad. That would be nice addition to OSM home page. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bing as Potlach layer in view mode?
Hi, are there any plans to add Bing satellite imagery as additional Potlach layer in view (not edit) mode? This could be nice for quick review and checking if there are any errors by switching between OSM and Bing layer. Cheers, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće, zwave registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing as Potlach layer in view mode?
Replace potlach with mapnik in previous email ;) Lapsus calami. On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, valent.turko...@gmail.com valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, are there any plans to add Bing satellite imagery as additional Potlach layer in view (not edit) mode? This could be nice for quick review and checking if there are any errors by switching between OSM and Bing layer. Cheers, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće, zwave registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće, zwave registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing as Potlach layer in view mode?
I just contacted the admin of http://sautter.com/map/ to add Bing as Base layer there. I think this would be your service. Claudius Am 18.01.2011 11:53, valent.turko...@gmail.com: Replace potlach with mapnik in previous email ;) Lapsus calami. On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, valent.turko...@gmail.com valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, are there any plans to add Bing satellite imagery as additional Potlach layer in view (not edit) mode? This could be nice for quick review and checking if there are any errors by switching between OSM and Bing layer. Cheers, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće, zwave registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing as Potlach layer in view mode?
Don't have the time to check right now but I think this was not permitted with the license provided. Greets, Floris On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Claudius claudiu...@gmx.de wrote: I just contacted the admin of http://sautter.com/map/ to add Bing as Base layer there. I think this would be your service. Claudius Am 18.01.2011 11:53, valent.turko...@gmail.com: Replace potlach with mapnik in previous email ;) Lapsus calami. On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, valent.turko...@gmail.com valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, are there any plans to add Bing satellite imagery as additional Potlach layer in view (not edit) mode? This could be nice for quick review and checking if there are any errors by switching between OSM and Bing layer. Cheers, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće, zwave registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org . ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 24 December 2010 02:10, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: That service looks very useful if it were ever implemented. I'd note that it probably needs to know about the date of the imagery too. Can't say I'm thrilled about the idea of storing the offset data in the main OSM db though. The service is written and half-deployed, but requires editor support to make it really useful. If a better home can be found for the offset data that will be no problem, since the service uses its own PostGIS database in any case. Consider, though, that the OSM database is a very simple place for mappers to apply offset data as they become aware of it. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Would application of notions described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/True_Offset_Process (i.e. recording of offsets in a formal manner) be practical and useful here? I have not reviewed all messages in this thread, so I do not know if this has already been brought up. --ceyockey (dies38...@mypacks.net) (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ceyockey) -Original Message- From: talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Dec 7, 2010 10:15 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: talk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 20 Today's Topics: 3. Bing maps is misplaced (Jaak Laineste) Message: 3 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:26:33 +0200 From: Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com To: OSM talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced Message-ID: aanlktinna9hyvfdh0jzeuuxen10qjmyhsutkyzwye...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It is good news that Bing aerials are available. The bad news is that Bing has made exactly the same mistake as Google, who has managed to misplace aerials in some areas in the beginning of September 2009. They are shifted about 20-25 meters, which makes them quite unusable for tracing.anything more than big roads. Maybe they use same flawed source for aerials? Affected area is Estonia, for example, and also some surrounding regions. It is easily seen even in Google and Bing own map services - when you switch to hybrid view. I put my quick analysis with examples to http://www.maakaart.ee/index.php/summary-in-english/google-and-bing-maps-errors -- Jaak Laineste End of talk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 20 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:23 AM, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote: Would application of notions described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/True_Offset_Process (i.e. recording of offsets in a formal manner) be practical and useful here? I have not reviewed all messages in this thread, so I do not know if this has already been brought up. --ceyockey (dies38...@mypacks.net) (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ceyockey) That service looks very useful if it were ever implemented. I'd note that it probably needs to know about the date of the imagery too. Can't say I'm thrilled about the idea of storing the offset data in the main OSM db though. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:27:08 +0100 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: A very good map can't be done just from orthophotos. it is quite a legitimate way of producing maps for remote areas, and a quick web search for orthocadastral map will lead you to scholarly articles on the use. My problem is the polarisation which occurs so quickly on this mailing list. The truthful answer is that sometimes survey is best, and sometimes other techniques are better. http://www.fao.org/sd/ltdirect/ltforum/LTfo0010.htm I would also point out that in the time of the Cold War the USSR completely mapped the UK from orthophotos, with a little ground work by the spy network. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209137/The-Soviet-road-map-shows-USSR-planned-invade-Manchester.html I have read scholarly articles on this set of maps, but can't provide a link at present. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 22/12/2010 09:02, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I would also point out that in the time of the Cold War the USSR completely mapped the UK from orthophotos, with a little ground work by the spy network. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209137/The-Soviet-road-map-shows-USSR-planned-invade-Manchester.html I have read scholarly articles on this set of maps, but can't provide a link at present. That article says much of it was copied from OS maps or road atlases etc. It also says But there's so much extra information, it would be fair to assume that they were able to gather a considerable amount of intelligence on the ground. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:46:36 + Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 22/12/2010 09:02, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I would also point out that in the time of the Cold War the USSR completely mapped the UK from orthophotos, with a little ground work by the spy network. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209137/The-Soviet-road-map-shows-USSR-planned-invade-Manchester.html I have read scholarly articles on this set of maps, but can't provide a link at present. That article says much of it was copied from OS maps or road atlases etc. It also says But there's so much extra information, it would be fair to assume that they were able to gather a considerable amount of intelligence on the ground. There is / was on the web a scholarly interpretation of the full set of maps. The conclusion of that was not the same as the journalist's or the editor's. Someone on this list will have the link to a full discussion. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: If you can map a street in just five seconds, using just three clicks and a keypress, this implies that you are mapping just the end points, with just a calculated line between them. Very few streets in the world are absolutely straight, with no curves at all. This also means that you aren't bothering to join streets at intersections, so none of the streets you map will be routable. Plus, from what you say, you aren't creating any tags on the roads you map. Most of the rest of us try to do a better job of mapping than that. Good grief. Where do I start? By apologising for my loose wording: click, click, click wasn't meant to indicate precisely three clicks. It's often four. Very few streets in the world are absolutely straight They are in grid-pattern suburbia and in agricultural areas on flat land. Prepare to have your mind blown: http://osm.org/go/uHo5Jhc- http://osm.org/go/uG4IcTi7- This also means that you aren't bothering to join streets at intersections, You can create a branch from one street, and connect it to another street (ie, a straight side street) with a shift-click, and one more click. Potlatch 2. Plus, from what you say, you aren't creating any tags on the roads you map. That's what the R keypress is for. Repeat tags. highway=residential,source=Bing. Sometimes there's a surface=unpaved. Most of the rest of us try to do a better job of mapping than that. The only way your whole email makes sense is if you think I'm a retarded monkey who failed OSM 101. I mean really: you think I'm sitting here creating a bunch of straight ways (even though the road is curved), that aren't connected to anything, and have no tags at all (not even highway=road). I'd be insulted, but your suggestions are just too ludicrous.If you were just trolling, then well played. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
I took your description of what you were doing at face value. Being a borderline-Asperger's type, I am sometimes a bit too literal-minded. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:stevag...@gmail.com Date :Wed Dec 22 20:02:12 America/Chicago 2010 On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: If you can map a street in just five seconds, using just three clicks and a keypress, this implies that you are mapping just the end points, with just a calculated line between them. Very few streets in the world are absolutely straight, with no curves at all. This also means that you aren't bothering to join streets at intersections, so none of the streets you map will be routable. Plus, from what you say, you aren't creating any tags on the roads you map. Most of the rest of us try to do a better job of mapping than that. Good grief. Where do I start? By apologising for my loose wording: click, click, click wasn't meant to indicate precisely three clicks. It's often four. Very few streets in the world are absolutely straight They are in grid-pattern suburbia and in agricultural areas on flat land. Prepare to have your mind blown: http://osm.org/go/uHo5Jhc- http://osm.org/go/uG4IcTi7- This also means that you aren't bothering to join streets at intersections, You can create a branch from one street, and connect it to another street (ie, a straight side street) with a shift-click, and one more click. Potlatch 2. Plus, from what you say, you aren't creating any tags on the roads you map. That's what the R keypress is for. Repeat tags. highway=residential,source=Bing. Sometimes there's a surface=unpaved. Most of the rest of us try to do a better job of mapping than that. The only way your whole email makes sense is if you think I'm a retarded monkey who failed OSM 101. I mean really: you think I'm sitting here creating a bunch of straight ways (even though the road is curved), that aren't connected to anything, and have no tags at all (not even highway=road). I'd be insulted, but your suggestions are just too ludicrous.If you were just trolling, then well played. Steve -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:18 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I took your description of what you were doing at face value. Being a borderline-Asperger's type, I am sometimes a bit too literal-minded. Oh I see. That makes sense - will bear in mind for the future. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
2010/12/19 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? Ah, cool. For me, this is a no-brainer: very comfortable with probable information. I'd rather have 1000 streets at 90% accuracy than 10 streets at 100% accuracy. Yes, that means I've created many errors in OSM. yes, in you example you would have 100 wrong streets. I'm not believing your numbers btw.: I doubt that you can only visit and map 10 streets with the effort you have to put 1000 streets from orthofotos (1%). Even if this ratio was only 10% (in my experience mapping takes as long as surveying, which would result in 50% for no survey at all) I would prefer 100 reliable streets to a thousand of which a hundred are wrong. If there is no information, this is at least reliable in the sense that you know you can't rely on it ;-) Btw, no idea how a ground survey would give a better idea of highway=tertiary vs residential. agreed, this requires actually not one ground survey but good knowledge of the area. Also, all suburban streets (of which the example was clearly one) are access=yes, no question there. OK, so you do have good knowledge of the circumstances/surroundings, which is important. To explain myself: I'm not against mapping from aerial imagery, I do it myself, but there are limits. A very good map can't be done just from orthophotos. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:27 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: yes, in you example you would have 100 wrong streets. I'm not believing your numbers btw.: I doubt that you can only visit and map 10 streets with the effort you have to put 1000 streets from orthofotos (1%). Even if this ratio was only 10% (in my experience mapping takes as long as surveying, which would result in 50% for no survey at all) I would prefer 100 reliable streets to a thousand of which a hundred are wrong. If there is no information, this is at least reliable in the sense that you know you can't rely on it ;-) Well, you're welcome to your preference. As to my numbers being wrong, it's probably the other way. When I'm on a roll, I'm probably mapping a street from imagery every 5 seconds or so. Click, click, click, r, done. I don't know how long it would take to drive up and down it (surveyors recommend at least two GPS passes don't they?), then import, then trace, then tag. A lot more than 50 seconds, anyway. And it's not as if GPS traces give brilliant results anyway. A very good map can't be done just from orthophotos. You thought I was saying the opposite? I would say a perfectly usable map can be made just from tracing imagery: you'll have the roads, with basic category distinctions, plus some footpaths, bike paths, parks, carparks, buildings etc etc. There will be occasional mistakes like driveways mapped as roads, incorrect junctions (ie, two roads that pass near each other but for some reason don't join), missing gates etc. And of course you won't have names. For the way I use maps, that's actually pretty acceptable: I tend to load them on a GPS and use them for navigation to a known point. So, knowing about roads that connect places is far more important than knowing what they're called or speed limits or whatever. (Also, since I cycle, a lot of that extra information about roads is irrelevant). Of course, we don't build maps just for our own individual preferences, but we're certainly biased towards including the information that interests us personally. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
If you can map a street in just five seconds, using just three clicks and a keypress, this implies that you are mapping just the end points, with just a calculated line between them. Very few streets in the world are absolutely straight, with no curves at all. This also means that you aren't bothering to join streets at intersections, so none of the streets you map will be routable. Plus, from what you say, you aren't creating any tags on the roads you map. Most of the rest of us try to do a better job of mapping than that. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:stevag...@gmail.com Date :Tue Dec 21 19:02:13 America/Chicago 2010 On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:27 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: yes, in you example you would have 100 wrong streets. I'm not believing your numbers btw.: I doubt that you can only visit and map 10 streets with the effort you have to put 1000 streets from orthofotos (1%). Even if this ratio was only 10% (in my experience mapping takes as long as surveying, which would result in 50% for no survey at all) I would prefer 100 reliable streets to a thousand of which a hundred are wrong. If there is no information, this is at least reliable in the sense that you know you can't rely on it ;-) Well, you're welcome to your preference. As to my numbers being wrong, it's probably the other way. When I'm on a roll, I'm probably mapping a street from imagery every 5 seconds or so. Click, click, click, r, done. I don't know how long it would take to drive up and down it (surveyors recommend at least two GPS passes don't they?), then import, then trace, then tag. A lot more than 50 seconds, anyway. And it's not as if GPS traces give brilliant results anyway. A very good map can't be done just from orthophotos. You thought I was saying the opposite? I would say a perfectly usable map can be made just from tracing imagery: you'll have the roads, with basic category distinctions, plus some footpaths, bike paths, parks, carparks, buildings etc etc. There will be occasional mistakes like driveways mapped as roads, incorrect junctions (ie, two roads that pass near each other but for some reason don't join), missing gates etc. And of course you won't have names. For the way I use maps, that's actually pretty acceptable: I tend to load them on a GPS and use them for navigation to a known point. So, knowing about roads that connect places is far more important than knowing what they're called or speed limits or whatever. (Also, since I cycle, a lot of that extra information about roads is irrelevant). Of course, we don't build maps just for our own individual preferences, but we're certainly biased towards including the information that interests us personally. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Of course. You can see details on signs and on walls on aerial imagery. *Doh!* that was supposed to have been You *can't* see details... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
2010/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal preferences? Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? If I knew the road I would surely do it. For the _point_ you linked to, it seems correct (the maxspeed at least for one direction), but I still would have to guess, that this maxspeed is valid for the other direction as well (probably yes, but you cannot be sure) and that it is valid for the whole road. Don't know if it is a residential street either (could be unclassified or tertiary). Of course you don't know for other restrictions (e.g. weight, but also access=destination, ...). You can be quite sure for the information you provided above, but still you don't know if some important information (like access=destination) that you surely would insert if you had visited the place, is missing. This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal preferences? Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? If I knew the road I would surely do it. For the _point_ you linked to, it seems correct (the maxspeed at least for one direction), but I still would have to guess, that this maxspeed is valid for the other direction as well (probably yes, but you cannot be sure) and that it is valid for the whole road. If I was a tourist and I went to that particular spot and saw that 50 on the ground, I still wouldn't know if the speed limit is just for one direction or both and if it applies to the whole road. So even if I were on the ground, my information would not be much better than if I traced from that particular aerial imagery. Don't know if it is a residential street either (could be unclassified or tertiary). Of course you don't know for other restrictions (e.g. weight, but also access=destination, ...). You can be quite sure for the information you provided above, but still you don't know if some important information (like access=destination) that you surely would insert if you had visited the place, is missing. OSM's a wiki, so other people can add those details. There's no need to have everything topnotch on the first edit. Otherwise we'd have a pretty blank map. This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? For aerial imagery that is of a high resolution and recency as Nearmap's, I would rather trust an Australian to trace and add data from that imagery even if he/she has not been to the place than if I were to actually visit that place and add details from on the ground. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 19 10:17:51 America/Chicago 2010 On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal preferences? Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? If I knew the road I would surely do it. For the _point_ you linked to, it seems correct (the maxspeed at least for one direction), but I still would have to guess, that this maxspeed is valid for the other direction as well (probably yes, but you cannot be sure) and that it is valid for the whole road. If I was a tourist and I went to that particular spot and saw that 50 on the ground, I still wouldn't know if the speed limit is just for one direction or both and if it applies to the whole road. So even if I were on the ground, my information would not be much better than if I traced from that particular aerial imagery. Don't know if it is a residential street either (could be unclassified or tertiary). Of course you don't know for other restrictions (e.g. weight, but also access=destination, ...). You can be quite sure for the information you provided above, but still you don't know if some important information (like access=destination) that you surely would insert if you had visited the place, is missing. OSM's a wiki, so other people can add those details. There's no need to have everything topnotch on the first edit. Otherwise we'd have a pretty blank map. This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? For aerial imagery that is of a high resolution and recency as Nearmap's, I would rather trust an Australian to trace and add data from that imagery even if he/she has not been to the place than if I were to actually visit that place and add details from on the ground. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:19:03 + John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? The road in question in the original post was on nearmap imagery which is updated frequently - in Melbourne about each 3 months. That exact example is from October 2010. just in case you forgot... http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 Lots of things in OSM are out of date, they are last mapped the last time the place was visited by a mapper. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Yes, but seav80 was saying that he or she prefers data made from the aerial view (up to 3 months old, and without some details observable only from the ground) to data recorded by someone going now to the location on the ground. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:ed...@billiau.net Date :Sun Dec 19 13:37:25 America/Chicago 2010 On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:19:03 + John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? The road in question in the original post was on nearmap imagery which is updated frequently - in Melbourne about each 3 months. That exact example is from October 2010. just in case you forgot... http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 Lots of things in OSM are out of date, they are last mapped the last time the place was visited by a mapper. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? Ah, cool. For me, this is a no-brainer: very comfortable with probable information. I'd rather have 1000 streets at 90% accuracy than 10 streets at 100% accuracy. Yes, that means I've created many errors in OSM. Btw, no idea how a ground survey would give a better idea of highway=tertiary vs residential. Also, all suburban streets (of which the example was clearly one) are access=yes, no question there. John F Eldredge wrote: So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? That's a rather unkind question, implying a non-existent choice: that you could either map every road from the air, or map every road from the ground. It also implies, incorrectly, that mapping from the ground ensures that OSM is always up to date. Ground-mapped data is only as current as the most recent visit, and I'd wager that the number of people regularly checking existing data with ground surveys is a fraction of the number using ground surveys to add new data. Whereas by contrast with something like NearMap (updated multiple times per year for large cities) I'm frequently looking over areas with existing data. I would argue that it's precisely because we use aerial imagery so much that OSM data for Melbourne (Australia) is fairly up to date. I can recall several instances where I mapped a housing development that had already been partially added by someone else - that is, OSM has actually tracked the building of the individual streets. I can't imagine that happening with ground surveys. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
For *that* particular imagery, yes. My point is that blindly saying that you shouldn't trace from imagery if you haven't visited the place is not a hard rule. There are a lot of circumstances when tracing is actually OK. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:19 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 19 10:17:51 America/Chicago 2010 On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal preferences? Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? If I knew the road I would surely do it. For the _point_ you linked to, it seems correct (the maxspeed at least for one direction), but I still would have to guess, that this maxspeed is valid for the other direction as well (probably yes, but you cannot be sure) and that it is valid for the whole road. If I was a tourist and I went to that particular spot and saw that 50 on the ground, I still wouldn't know if the speed limit is just for one direction or both and if it applies to the whole road. So even if I were on the ground, my information would not be much better than if I traced from that particular aerial imagery. Don't know if it is a residential street either (could be unclassified or tertiary). Of course you don't know for other restrictions (e.g. weight, but also access=destination, ...). You can be quite sure for the information you provided above, but still you don't know if some important information (like access=destination) that you surely would insert if you had visited the place, is missing. OSM's a wiki, so other people can add those details. There's no need to have everything topnotch on the first edit. Otherwise we'd have a pretty blank map. This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? For aerial imagery that is of a high resolution and recency as Nearmap's, I would rather trust an Australian to trace and add data from that imagery even if he/she has not been to the place than if I were to actually visit that place and add details from on the ground. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
OK, but there will likely be additional details available from visiting the site in person that you wouldn't be able to detect from an aerial view, plus you would be able to tell if the road had been modified since the aerial photo had been taken. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 19 18:00:21 America/Chicago 2010 For *that* particular imagery, yes. My point is that blindly saying that you shouldn't trace from imagery if you haven't visited the place is not a hard rule. There are a lot of circumstances when tracing is actually OK. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:19 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 19 10:17:51 America/Chicago 2010 On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal preferences? Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? If I knew the road I would surely do it. For the_point_ you linked to, it seems correct (the maxspeed at least for one direction), but I still would have to guess, that this maxspeed is valid for the other direction as well (probably yes, but you cannot be sure) and that it is valid for the whole road. If I was a tourist and I went to that particular spot and saw that 50 on the ground, I still wouldn't know if the speed limit is just for one direction or both and if it applies to the whole road. So even if I were on the ground, my information would not be much better than if I traced from that particular aerial imagery. Don't know if it is a residential street either (could be unclassified or tertiary). Of course you don't know for other restrictions (e.g. weight, but also access=destination, ...). You can be quite sure for the information you provided above, but still you don't know if some important information (like access=destination) that you surely would insert if you had visited the place, is missing. OSM's a wiki, so other people can add those details. There's no need to have everything topnotch on the first edit. Otherwise we'd have a pretty blank map. This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? For aerial imagery that is of a high resolution and recency as Nearmap's, I would rather trust an Australian to trace and add data from that imagery even if he/she has not been to the place than if I were to actually visit that place and add details from on the ground. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Of course. You can see details on signs and on walls on aerial imagery. I'm not saying that nobody should anymore visit a place that has been traced from aerial imagery. But for Australian aerial imagery like Nearmap's which is very recent and of a high resolution, I think that Australians would derive much more info from that imagery than if some random non-Australian person like me were to actually visit the place. Heck, there are places in my city that haven't been visited by any mapper in the last 3 years! Aerial imagery that is 3 months old is a lot better than that! On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:18 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: OK, but there will likely be additional details available from visiting the site in person that you wouldn't be able to detect from an aerial view, plus you would be able to tell if the road had been modified since the aerial photo had been taken. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 19 18:00:21 America/Chicago 2010 For *that* particular imagery, yes. My point is that blindly saying that you shouldn't trace from imagery if you haven't visited the place is not a hard rule. There are a lot of circumstances when tracing is actually OK. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:19 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 19 10:17:51 America/Chicago 2010 On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal preferences? Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? If I knew the road I would surely do it. For the_point_ you linked to, it seems correct (the maxspeed at least for one direction), but I still would have to guess, that this maxspeed is valid for the other direction as well (probably yes, but you cannot be sure) and that it is valid for the whole road. If I was a tourist and I went to that particular spot and saw that 50 on the ground, I still wouldn't know if the speed limit is just for one direction or both and if it applies to the whole road. So even if I were on the ground, my information would not be much better than if I traced from that particular aerial imagery. Don't know if it is a residential street either (could be unclassified or tertiary). Of course you don't know for other restrictions (e.g. weight, but also access=destination, ...). You can be quite sure for the information you provided above, but still you don't know if some important information (like access=destination) that you surely would insert if you had visited the place, is missing. OSM's a wiki, so other people can add those details. There's no need to have everything topnotch on the first edit. Otherwise we'd have a pretty blank map. This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? For aerial imagery that is of a high resolution and recency as Nearmap's, I would rather trust an Australian to trace and add data from that imagery even if he/she has not been to the place than if I were to actually visit that place and add details from on the ground. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Just a comment locally someone did a trace and managed to get one end of the road about 100 meters out and connected at the wrong road junction. Took me a while to sort it out. Cheerio John On 19 December 2010 19:18, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: OK, but there will likely be additional details available from visiting the site in person that you wouldn't be able to detect from an aerial view, plus you would be able to tell if the road had been modified since the aerial photo had been taken. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 19 18:00:21 America/Chicago 2010 For *that* particular imagery, yes. My point is that blindly saying that you shouldn't trace from imagery if you haven't visited the place is not a hard rule. There are a lot of circumstances when tracing is actually OK. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:19 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 19 10:17:51 America/Chicago 2010 On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal preferences? Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? If I knew the road I would surely do it. For the_point_ you linked to, it seems correct (the maxspeed at least for one direction), but I still would have to guess, that this maxspeed is valid for the other direction as well (probably yes, but you cannot be sure) and that it is valid for the whole road. If I was a tourist and I went to that particular spot and saw that 50 on the ground, I still wouldn't know if the speed limit is just for one direction or both and if it applies to the whole road. So even if I were on the ground, my information would not be much better than if I traced from that particular aerial imagery. Don't know if it is a residential street either (could be unclassified or tertiary). Of course you don't know for other restrictions (e.g. weight, but also access=destination, ...). You can be quite sure for the information you provided above, but still you don't know if some important information (like access=destination) that you surely would insert if you had visited the place, is missing. OSM's a wiki, so other people can add those details. There's no need to have everything topnotch on the first edit. Otherwise we'd have a pretty blank map. This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? For aerial imagery that is of a high resolution and recency as Nearmap's, I would rather trust an Australian to trace and add data from that imagery even if he/she has not been to the place than if I were to actually visit that place and add details from on the ground. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 15/12/2010 11:16, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Please tag roads derived from aerial imagery as highway=road No real need. From Bing you can deduce whether it's residential or service etc. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery analyzer - date range (Dec/2000-Jun/2006)
Am 15.12.2010 02:29, schrieb dies38...@mypacks.net: I'm looking at imagery over Cali, Colombia and see a date displayed as Dec/2000-Jun/2006. This seems quite a large range; could you explain how we should interpret this date information? Thanks. This information is sent from Bing as-is, it's only displayed by the analyzer, not interpreted. Does the range get smaller when you zoom in? Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
2010/12/9 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: What the whole discussion here seems to be missing: You can't read street names from bing (or Yahoo) imagery. +1, and you can't see restrictions, surface quality and material, oneways, etc. on them. That's why there is highway=road. You should avoid to tag highway=specific-highway-class if you don't know the location from being on the ground. Please tag roads derived from aerial imagery as highway=road so it is clear what kind of information about the road we have (mainly the position as it appeared in a several year old orthographic photo). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Quite a lot of car parks and other roads have one way arrows visible on the bing imagry, often the position of speedlimits are available too, although this might just be a uk only tendancy. Certainly helps in completing places I have visited without a gps and pen/paper. Then again I have only been doing stuff I have some knowledge of. On 15 Dec 2010 11:19, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/9 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: What the whole discussion here seems to be missing: You can't read street names from bing (or Ya... +1, and you can't see restrictions, surface quality and material, oneways, etc. on them. That's why there is highway=road. You should avoid to tag highway=specific-highway-class if you don't know the location from being on the ground. Please tag roads derived from aerial imagery as highway=road so it is clear what kind of information about the road we have (mainly the position as it appeared in a several year old orthographic photo). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lis... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: +1, and you can't see restrictions, surface quality and material, oneways, etc. on them. That's why there is highway=road. You should avoid to tag highway=specific-highway-class if you don't know the location from being on the ground. Please tag roads derived from aerial imagery as highway=road I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal preferences? Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:45:56 +1100, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275z=20t=knmd=20101020 as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? Is that 50 mph or 50 km/h? ;-) SCNR Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery analyzer - date range (Dec/2000-Jun/2006)
No, the range does not appear to get smaller when you zoom in. --ceyockey -Original Message- From: Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de Sent: Dec 15, 2010 5:43 AM This information is sent from Bing as-is, it's only displayed by the analyzer, not interpreted. Does the range get smaller when you zoom in? Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery analyzer - date range (Dec/2000-Jun/2006)
Martijn, I'm looking at imagery over Cali, Colombia and see a date displayed as Dec/2000-Jun/2006. This seems quite a large range; could you explain how we should interpret this date information? Thanks. ceyockey http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ceyockey 7. Re: new version of Bing aerial imagery analyzer tool (S.Higashi) Message: 7 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:34:54 +0900 From: S.Higashi s_hig...@mua.biglobe.ne.jp To: Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org Cc: Talk OSM talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] new version of Bing aerial imagery analyzer tool Message-ID: aanlktik4go194acggkfkhtrjzzfn30-o4dlylrxrx...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Thanks for your quick reply. by position, do you mean the coordinates? They are available through the permalink option. I wanted to get boundary box or something like that at a glance. But, the coordinates in the URL would be enough. Thank you I'll note them. Although this is not main topic when I trace Bing imagery, I add -MM to source tags watching your site like: source=Bing, 2007-04 I think the imagery date is important because it may be updated someday. As for the tile ID, you can find that out by right-clicking the appropriate tile and selecting something like 'image properties' or 'image info' from the context menu. The value behind '?t= is the tile quadkey which is the unique identifier. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness ? impatience ? hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:39 PM, S.Higashi s_hig...@mua.biglobe.ne.jp wrote: Thanks for your tool and this new feature. Also something like the position or ID of each tile would be appriciated, if shown on the screen. I'd like to note where I adjusted the offset of background imagery. Thanks for this tool, it's really helpful in Romania. --Ciprian On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Hi all, I just replaced the Bing aerial imagery analyzer tool with a new version. http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 08/12/2010 14:35, Maarten Deen wrote: I have never heard of this before and have never seen it documented anywhere or seen discussed before. The only mention of do not trace from aerial maps is when it is off Google's maps because we cannot legaly use them. Never before have I seen a mention of do not trace from aerial maps where you do not have local knowledge. If you can point to previous discussions about this, that would be very helpful. Until that, I support Steve's view completely. See: http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2009/11/10/the-pottery-club/ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Aerial_Imagery#Problems_with_tracing_Yahoo http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2006-December/009304.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-January/008698.html and subsequent messages http://brainoff.com/weblog/2010/04/28/1556 (last para in particular) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2009-October/001753.html ...I'll have more later. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: But _intensive_ tracing can and does kill people's motivation. Doesn't matter whether you think the people are misguided or pompous, it happens. I've seen it in Worcester, in the East Midlands, in Northern Ireland. The result is that, rather than having the best map available, we merely have (especially in the case of OS OpenData) a carbon copy of a map you could download from somewhere else - and pissed-off mappers who no longer want to make it any better. Excellent. Finally a rational argument against tracing in certain situations. We could even begin to formulate policy: Tracing imagery in areas where there are active local mappers using ground survey methods can kill enthusiasm and stunt the final quality of the map. Consider asking on the appropriate mailing list before doing it, particularly in densely populated areas. OTOH, I have to say that almost everywhere is going to end up mapped at the first level (what can be easily seen from the air), and it will be an interesting challenge to motivate people to fill in those secondary and tertiary layers of detail. But if you have an itchy mouse finger and it's cold outside, why not choose one of the a million and one other ways to make the map better - without endangering the enthusiasm which is OSM's greatest asset? Speaking for myself, I actually really enjoy aerial tracing. Asking me not to do it would be endangering *my* enthusiasm :) I enjoy going outside as well, but I tend to find going out of my way to collect GPS traces gets inconvenient, quickly. And I have issues with driving hundreds of kilometres to do something that could be done remotely. There's so much to do. It's got to be more efficient for tracers to tackle the bits that _aren't_ being catered for by local mappers. To be honest, this conflict never even occurred to me before. I don't know whether it's particularly relevant to me though - Australia has an enormous land/mapper ratio. And I can't imagine getting any grief from some poor sod who was just desperate to get out on his bike and locally survey yet another bloody new outer Melbourne housing development. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Joseph Reeves wrote: Sorry, but I find this to be a really negative attitude; there's loads of people that want to draw a line on the map for the first time, but less who want to tidy existing streets, or just add POIs. What would be wrong, for example, with collecting the first GPS trace of a road? Arguably this is much more important than the first tracing of the same road from Bing. The thing I hate about getting in discussions on here is that I always end up sounding more hard-line than I really am. I certainly wouldn't discourage someone from having a go and tracing something from imagery to try their hand at OSM - in fact I would encourage it. As for collecting the first GPS trace - fantastic! I agree that not everyone wants to collect every single POI when they map a road (and I don't either). I am not trying to say that a local mapper being put off going somewhere should necessarily be a reason not to do something, I am simply saying it is something worth being aware of. Sorry if you find it negative. It was more that I have very limited time to devote to OSM,and had several possibilities for massive local chunks of things missing from the map. I could have chosen to do the country lanes I had planned, but that now seemed lower priority than some of the other things I wanted to get done. I can see why you thought the mapper who contacted you arrogant, because he sent you a rude email. I did not do that to the tracer in my case. If I had contacted him/her, I would have been polite and assumed good faith. I think rude or angry emails flying around between mappers do far more damage to the project than remote tracing ever has! Personally I do think it is a sensible rule of thumb in most cases to either have a little bit of knowledge of an area you are tracing or a plan to visit, but I accept that there are always exceptions, and this is far from the only consideration you need to weigh up. But thanks to all who have posted some opposing perspectives. I had not consider all of these perspectives. Cheers David -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5818774.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Steve, On 12/09/10 13:34, Steve Bennett wrote: Excellent. Finally a rational argument against tracing in certain situations. We could even begin to formulate policy: You say policy which, for me, is acceptable only for very few fields in OSM and certainly not for how and what someone maps; but what you formulate... Tracing imagery in areas where there are active local mappers using ground survey methods can kill enthusiasm and stunt the final quality of the map. Consider asking on the appropriate mailing list before doing it, particularly in densely populated areas. ... is more a recommendation or maybe best practice, which I think is perfectly ok to have. (The good thing about a recommendation is that there's no quorum and no resolution, so if there's two people recommending different stuff you get to choose whom you want to follow.) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Am 09.12.2010 12:42, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 09.12.2010 02:49, schrieb Kenneth Gonsalves: what I object to is mapping a place one has no intention of visiting Fine, seems you don't like the wiki principle ... I think you're getting confused with the Wikipedia Principle: you have a right to contribute and edit, no matter if you don't know anything about the subject. Wikis aren't all like that and OSM certainly isn't. Don't you think this is a bit misleading statement? ... don't know anything about the subject isn't really the case if you draw streets / houses from imagery. For me the wiki principle is that anyone adds information the best as he can. If there are bugs / missing pieces, the next one that comes along can improve it. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:34 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: Excellent. Finally a rational argument against tracing in certain situations. We could even begin to formulate policy: Tracing imagery in areas where there are active local mappers using ground survey methods can kill enthusiasm and stunt the final quality of the map. Consider asking on the appropriate mailing list before doing it, particularly in densely populated areas. OTOH, I have to say that almost everywhere is going to end up mapped at the first level (what can be easily seen from the air), and it will be an interesting challenge to motivate people to fill in those secondary and tertiary layers of detail. actually I find myself doing it the other way around - first map on the ground and then use the air view (if any) to fill in things. [...] To be honest, this conflict never even occurred to me before. I don't know whether it's particularly relevant to me though - Australia has an enormous land/mapper ratio. And I can't imagine getting any grief from some poor sod who was just desperate to get out on his bike and locally survey yet another bloody new outer Melbourne housing development. maybe in Australia yahoo updates it's imagery more often than once in 2-3 years. So you would see a marsh and map it as such - and maybe the said poor local sod may not even get on his bike to go there as who wants to map a marsh? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 08/12/10 08:32, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Jowinfi...@gmail.com wrote: Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2 and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure. But how do you know which direction to offset and by how much? Is the Bing imagery really offset so uniformly, over large areas? Btw: They are shifted about 20-25 meters, which makes them quite unusable for tracing.anything more than big roads. But if you have some gps traces in the area and/or some surveyed roads then it's possible to line up the imagery with the known surveyed items. Area I'm working in at the moment generally appears to be 5-10 metres out. From numerous gps traces and known positions. Same as was done with Yahoo and some of the early nearmap imagery. Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:32:39AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2 and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure. But how do you know which direction to offset and by how much? Is the Bing imagery really offset so uniformly, over large areas? You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more about. Usually there is already something mapped in the interesting area, there should be some GPS traces over important roads. That should be enough to align the imagery. And even when the imagery is only what you have and there is no other data in that are, the shift won't matter much. Someone with GPS or even better equipment will come there and move everything to the right place. This way the incomplete data will be completed. And that is why 'source' tags and right changeset comments are important – they give some information about what accuracy we may expect. The real problem appears when someone traces the misaligned imagery over existing correct OSM data. As far as the uniformity of the offset is concerned, it seems it is not very uniform even on small areas. I try to align it to the closes known data. Please remember, that the imagery is only some aid, not exact geodetic data. Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more about. Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no policy to back them up? There is no policy that says anything of the sort. The above sentence is one author's opinion. It would be a very good thing for the OSM project if we moved on from the primitive state of simply contradicting each other all the time, and worked together to build policies that had consensus support. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:01 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more about. Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no policy to back them up? There is no policy that says anything of the sort. The above sentence is one author's opinion. It would be a very good thing for the OSM project if we moved on from the primitive state of simply contradicting each other all the time, and worked together to build policies that had consensus support. you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. Period. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote: On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:01 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more about. Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no policy to back them up? There is no policy that says anything of the sort. The above sentence is one author's opinion. It would be a very good thing for the OSM project if we moved on from the primitive state of simply contradicting each other all the time, and worked together to build policies that had consensus support. you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. Period. So, just to make that clear: when aerial imagery of, say, Pakistan, is made available to help mapping, I should not trace anything unless I've actually visited the region to be mapped? Regards, Raphaël ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 8 December 2010 11:05, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. Period. People should be nicer to their parents. Period Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:10 +0100, Raphaël Pinson wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. Period. So, just to make that clear: when aerial imagery of, say, Pakistan, is made available to help mapping, I should not trace anything unless I've actually visited the region to be mapped? yes - I am from India and have enough trouble with enthusiastic people mapping aquaducts as highways (for example) -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:35:31 +0530 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. Period. So how about Haiti? Colombia? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:37 +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:35:31 +0530 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. Period. So how about Haiti? Colombia? exceptional circumstances sometimes need to break rules. But in normal course of events, it is not polite to irritate local mappers. Say in most of India, satellite imagery can be upto 3 years old - and in the past three years there has been a huge construction boom -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and call it policy. Otherwise, it's just yet another round of pointless You must do this. on the mailing lists. I mean, am I the only one that thinks inventing commandments and yelling them at each other is pointless? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 8 December 2010 13:18, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and call it policy. I have been under the impression that this _has_ been the policy for years. Certainly as long as I've been a member of the project people have been saying things just like this. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, am I the only one that thinks inventing commandments and yelling them at each other is pointless? I should apologise here for picking on two innocent individuals. I was trying to offer a criticism of the culture of the mailing lists and the project as a whole, and a suggestion to look at moving to a more scalable model, where policies get agreed, then written down. (So, sorry.) Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
OpenStreetMap is still a wiki though? So if I find a future travel destination missing from OSM, but covered by Bing, where's the harm in tracing it? In many parts of the world there is no such thing as local mappers and even if I did trace a load of crap into the database, anyone else can come along and, providing they've got a better data source than I, fix it. We should all map place we know nothing about. Period. If nothing else it may provide a vital spark in developing local interests and efforts. It's a wiki, it doesn't need to be perfect first time. Joseph On 8 December 2010 11:49, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:37 +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:35:31 +0530 Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. Period. So how about Haiti? Colombia? exceptional circumstances sometimes need to break rules. But in normal course of events, it is not polite to irritate local mappers. Say in most of India, satellite imagery can be upto 3 years old - and in the past three years there has been a huge construction boom -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Matt Williams wrote: On 8 December 2010 13:18, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and call it policy. I have been under the impression that this _has_ been the policy for years. Certainly as long as I've been a member of the project people have been saying things just like this. I have never heard of this before and have never seen it documented anywhere or seen discussed before. The only mention of do not trace from aerial maps is when it is off Google's maps because we cannot legaly use them. Never before have I seen a mention of do not trace from aerial maps where you do not have local knowledge. If you can point to previous discussions about this, that would be very helpful. Until that, I support Steve's view completely. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:01:45PM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more about. Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no policy to back them up? Absolutist? 'Should not' is not 'must not'. And have you read whole mail? I have even described the case of how the imagery is useful even when traced on an 'empty' part of OSM data. If I write 'we should try to make OSM data as accurate as possible' is that still some absolutist bold statement that limits your freedom? Practice of not mapping unknown area is about accuracy. A lot of people invest their time and money to get to the places they map, just to make the data accurate. Without even visiting a place you don't know if the gray rectangle is a building or something else. Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and call it policy. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1 See item 3.* This was almost the first wiki page I read when I joined OSM in 2008. It was there then, and it's there now. I haven't always followed it, for instance in Haiti, but I have always assumed that if it is in the Beginners Guide it is as close to policy as OSM will ever get.* And I've just noticed, Bing is not mentioned, so I suppose I'll be a good citizen and add it now. David * I'm not saying it is policy, as I still don't know what that means in OSM! -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5816870.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1 See item 3.* Very interesting. That line was added by Ben in January 2009, and that sentence hasn't been touched since. So the question arises: does the community support this view? And if it does, then we should add it to some policy pages, which we would expect everyone to follow. (Personally, I would be arguing against it. Don't do X because the result would be less accurate than if you did Y is an unhelpful kind of perfectionism. The line makes the point that accuracy is important. Well, coverage is also important. And you could argue that it's much more efficient to map from aerial imagery first, then correct errors with a local visit.) This was almost the first wiki page I read when I joined OSM in 2008. It was there then, and it's there now. I haven't always followed it, for instance in Haiti, but I have always assumed that if it is in the Beginners Guide it is as close to policy as OSM will ever get.* I'm not sure I've ever even seen that page before. And no, there's a big difference between advice for beginners, and actual policy. * I'm not saying it is policy, as I still don't know what that means in OSM! I don't think the term is yet used. I'm borrowing from Wikipedia, which went through this whole process of formalising community expectations into policy more than 5 years ago. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
I have seen a similar error in google sat for the area of brod, in kosovo. Bing is not even worth looking at for kosovo On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote: It is good news that Bing aerials are available. The bad news is that Bing has made exactly the same mistake as Google, who has managed to misplace aerials in some areas in the beginning of September 2009. They are shifted about 20-25 meters, which makes them quite unusable for tracing.anything more than big roads. Maybe they use same flawed source for aerials? Affected area is Estonia, for example, and also some surrounding regions. It is easily seen even in Google and Bing own map services - when you switch to hybrid view. I put my quick analysis with examples to http://www.maakaart.ee/index.php/summary-in-english/google-and-bing-maps-errors -- Jaak Laineste ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Am 08.12.2010 22:59, schrieb Steve Bennett: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespodosmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1 See item 3.* Very interesting. That line was added by Ben in January 2009, and that sentence hasn't been touched since. So the question arises: does the community support this view? No. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Steve Bennett wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1 See item 3.* Very interesting. That line was added by Ben in January 2009, and that sentence hasn't been touched since. Bah! You're right! I'm sure I read this in one of the very first wiki pages I read, but obviously not this one. I have certainly been aware of the principle since the outset, and I got all my early information from the wiki (I did not read the mailing lists for several months, and good thing too - I would probably have been scared off!). By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe I'm being silly. Good luck with trying to reach a consensus. It's a while since I saw one of those on these lists :) Cheers David -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5817117.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:46 PM, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else remotely traced them. A flying trip is only partway up the scale of desirability. What you want is someone who really knows the area. They're most likely to get involved if they spot an error and realise that they can fix it. You don't want to litter the map with errors, but a few honest mistakes are probably even helpful. I wouldn't recommend remote tracing, but if you do it with due care, or maybe to supplement stuff you have surveyed (or maybe even just seen out of the window when passing), then it probably doesn't irritate genuine local mappers much more than whizzing about with a GPS on a bike and thinking you know everything. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Hi, Ulf Lamping wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1 See item 3.* So the question arises: does the community support this view? No. I've changed the wording, trying to still say that tracing is *better* if you have local knowledge, but local knowledge is not *required*. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Richard Mann wrote: I wouldn't recommend remote tracing, but if you do it with due care, or maybe to supplement stuff you have surveyed (or maybe even just seen out of the window when passing), I completely agree that supplementing stuff you have surveyed or even tracing something you have passed is absolutely fine, and I have done both. I have traced woods where I recall walking as a child but where could not possibly say I know where the exact boundaries are from a ground survey. I think common sense needs to apply. then it probably doesn't irritate genuine local mappers much more than whizzing about with a GPS on a bike and thinking you know everything. I will try not to take that personally. Particularly, as the area I was referring to was a local one by my rural standards. I also agree that dedicated local mappers who travel along a road or footpath regularly would be the most desirable in terms of map quality, but the odds of getting one of those in every hamlet in Shropshire are pretty small. There has to be a balance. David -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5817301.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe I'm being silly. Sorry, but I find this to be a really negative attitude; there's loads of people that want to draw a line on the map for the first time, but less who want to tidy existing streets, or just add POIs. What would be wrong, for example, with collecting the first GPS trace of a road? Arguably this is much more important than the first tracing of the same road from Bing. An example from my recent past: We display OSM imagery on our website to show people where our offices are. We have one office that was in a town poorly covered by OSM. When the OS Open imagery became available I traced chunks of the town into OSM to improve the map and our website. It may not have been perfect, but it was better than nothing. I then received a miserable email asking me to stop because a local mapper was planning to get on his bike and map the town, but now wasn't going to because he'd only be fixing my mistakes. Whilst I'm sorry I took away the thrill this user feels in being the first to draw on a map, I don't really care what he was planning to do; I wanted the map updating as soon as possible and there existed a way of doing it from home. Likewise, his pompous attitude about fixing my mistakes didn't endear me to him; what's wrong with fixing mistakes if they've been entered by someone doing the best they could? What's wrong with getting some GPS traces to enhance / support what's already there? What's wrong with sourcing data from multiple locations? Tracing imagery may not be perfect, but it should be a start, not a reason to avoid going out. Cheers, Joseph On 8 December 2010 22:46, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1 See item 3.* Very interesting. That line was added by Ben in January 2009, and that sentence hasn't been touched since. Bah! You're right! I'm sure I read this in one of the very first wiki pages I read, but obviously not this one. I have certainly been aware of the principle since the outset, and I got all my early information from the wiki (I did not read the mailing lists for several months, and good thing too - I would probably have been scared off!). By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe I'm being silly. Good luck with trying to reach a consensus. It's a while since I saw one of those on these lists :) Cheers David -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5817117.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 08/12/2010 21:59, Steve Bennett wrote: So the question arises: does the community support this view? Unlike the Life of Brian, here everyone does seem to be an individual - I suspect that you'll get as many answers as there are mappers. Speaking entirely personally, I do mostly only map places that I've been and don't tend to trace e.g. a road or track unless I've seen one end of it. When I started adding stuff to OSM the map was entirely blank where I lived and I wasn't aware that anyone traced stuff at all. I eventually encountered a road that seemed a bit wrong - it was consistently a few metres SW of my GPS traces. Initially I assumed that I must be hitting some sort of urban canyon effect and tried again, but got the same results. Eventually I figured that it had been traced from an old NPE (out of copyright) map. There was actually nothing wrong with the tracing; the error was on the old map. So was the original mapper wrong to have traced that road from NPE? Personally I'd say no; a road in not quite the right place (on an otherwise empty map) is better than no road at all. Problems can obviously happen if what's being traced from isn't as good as it could be (the issue that Kenneth raised earlier on in the thread), and in the UK that may be an issue with some of the Bing imagery as it looks (a) quite detailed but (b) quite old. Where there are a reasonable number of local mappers, tracing can be less beneficial because it can get people to think that an area is complete when it's not been ground surveyed. When creating Garmin maps locally for my own use I try and incorporate certain source=s (e.g. NPE, Yahoo) and users (if a known non-on-the-ground mapper) in the name. I live not far from Staffordshire in the UK and parts of that are somewhat iffy - they look complete, but what's on the map doesn't match reality. However, there are also places where a GPS simply won't get a good fix because of the terrain and short of a theodolite or something capable of dead reckoning, tracing is the only way to get an accurate road / path layout to lay POIs on. If you're in a country with relatively few mappers, then tracing makes some sense, it gets coverage now where there otherwise would be none, but it doesn't take away the requirement for someone (eventually) to visit and add detail that you can only get by actually being there. I don't think that there can ever be a planet-wide consensus about tracing where you haven't visited; but individual communities should be able to come to some sort of agreement for smaller areas. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
In my case, I have done a mixture of image-tracing (from the Yahoo aerial imagery), and POI marking (from first-hand knowledge, and frequently from ccordinates measures using my phone's GPS). All of my image-tracing has been in areas that I had first-hand knowledge of. Since most of the roadways in this area are already marked from the TIGER import, and these imported roads mostly align with the Yahoo imagery, the majority of the image-tracing involves fixing the occasional road that was marked a few meters off from its actual location, while the adjoining roads are correct. I have added a few minor roads that were built too recently to be in the TIGER data, plus mapping the zoo and a couple of small cemeteries. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced From :mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk Date :Wed Dec 08 18:15:39 America/Chicago 2010 On 08/12/2010 21:59, Steve Bennett wrote: So the question arises: does the community support this view? Unlike the Life of Brian, here everyone does seem to be an individual - I suspect that you'll get as many answers as there are mappers. Speaking entirely personally, I do mostly only map places that I've been and don't tend to trace e.g. a road or track unless I've seen one end of it. When I started adding stuff to OSM the map was entirely blank where I lived and I wasn't aware that anyone traced stuff at all. I eventually encountered a road that seemed a bit wrong - it was consistently a few metres SW of my GPS traces. Initially I assumed that I must be hitting some sort of urban canyon effect and tried again, but got the same results. Eventually I figured that it had been traced from an old NPE (out of copyright) map. There was actually nothing wrong with the tracing; the error was on the old map. So was the original mapper wrong to have traced that road from NPE? Personally I'd say no; a road in not quite the right place (on an otherwise empty map) is better than no road at all. Problems can obviously happen if what's being traced from isn't as good as it could be (the issue that Kenneth raised earlier on in the thread), and in the UK that may be an issue with some of the Bing imagery as it looks (a) quite detailed but (b) quite old. Where there are a reasonable number of local mappers, tracing can be less beneficial because it can get people to think that an area is complete when it's not been ground surveyed. When creating Garmin maps locally for my own use I try and incorporate certain source=s (e.g. NPE, Yahoo) and users (if a known non-on-the-ground mapper) in the name. I live not far from Staffordshire in the UK and parts of that are somewhat iffy - they look complete, but what's on the map doesn't match reality. However, there are also places where a GPS simply won't get a good fix because of the terrain and short of a theodolite or something capable of dead reckoning, tracing is the only way to get an accurate road / path layout to lay POIs on. If you're in a country with relatively few mappers, then tracing makes some sense, it gets coverage now where there otherwise would be none, but it doesn't take away the requirement for someone (eventually) to visit and add detail that you can only get by actually being there. I don't think that there can ever be a planet-wide consensus about tracing where you haven't visited; but individual communities should be able to come to some sort of agreement for smaller areas. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Am 08.12.2010 23:46, schrieb davespod: By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe I'm being silly. What the whole discussion here seems to be missing: You can't read street names from bing (or Yahoo) imagery. My story: I've drawn roughly 2/3 of all streets from a german city with ~10 habitants from imagery in about a day and very slowly started to add street names by surveying. A few weeks later, someone else had added all the missing street names. In the meantime I know that person and he told me, that he was able to add the street names easily but didn't had a GPS to survey the roads, so he wasn't able to start mapping before (he wasn't aware of the imagery possibility). It's probably not the best idea for a newbie to use imagery to start with OSM mapping work, but generally telling people not to draw from imagery in remote areas reduces our possibility to effectively improve the map. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:53 +, Joseph Reeves wrote: local mappers and even if I did trace a load of crap into the database, anyone else can come along and, providing they've got a better data source than I, fix it. please keep off India -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Am 09.12.2010 02:49, schrieb Kenneth Gonsalves: On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 08:59 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: (Personally, I would be arguing against it. Don't do X because the result would be less accurate than if you did Y is an unhelpful kind of perfectionism. The line makes the point that accuracy is important. Well, coverage is also important. And you could argue that it's much more efficient to map from aerial imagery first, then correct errors with a local visit.) I have absolutely no objection to map from aerial imagery first, then correct errors with a local visit - as along as you are intending to make that visit in the very near future. For example, we were to hold a conference here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=13.03175lon=77.56565zoom=17layers=M before the conference I did a rough sketch from satellite imagery. On arrival at the spot I found that the ground reality was totally at variance with the satellite imagery - and I got lost! Seems the imagery got outdated. If someone had perfectly mapped that area a few years ago and it got completely outdated in the meantime - you would get into the exact same problem. Taking your opinion further would mean we shouldn't map anything at all because the map data might get outdated. What your example really tells us is that you shouldn't repair existing OSM data from (probably outdated) imagery without local knowledge. what I object to is mapping a place one has no intention of visiting Fine, seems you don't like the wiki principle ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
At 2010-12-08 04:53, Joseph Reeves wrote: OpenStreetMap is still a wiki though? So if I find a future travel destination missing from OSM, but covered by Bing, where's the harm in tracing it? In many parts of the world there is no such thing as local mappers and even if I did trace a load of crap into the database, anyone else can come along and, providing they've got a better data source than I, fix it. Exactly. Creating something where there was nothing leaves the map better off. In some cases, you might be creating some features that are no longer there, but I'd expect these to be a minority. Where people should be careful, IMO, is in moving existing features based on satellite imagery when you do not know the accuracy of the imagery. Even GPS traces, when made in low-accuracy environments, may not be accurate enough to prove the ground truth, as you will see if you look carefully at your GPS receiver's estimated accuracy while driving around with it inside a car, in mountainous or tall building areas, etc. It takes real work and research to establish reference points that can be used to correctly georeference an image. We should all map place we know nothing about. Period. If nothing else it may provide a vital spark in developing local interests and efforts. It's a wiki, it doesn't need to be perfect first time. I, too, believe it is useful to have _something_ present in an area in order to ignite local interest. If someone on an island goes to OSM and sees nothing, they might likely just move on. If, however, they see the land mass and the main road with some other features that may not be correct, they are more likely to get interested in fixing them. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
At 2010-12-08 14:46, davespod wrote: I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe I'm being silly. To each, his own, I suppose. It wouldn't stop (and hasn't stopped) me, but I live in a place (California) that has most of its roads already present, though badly mis-aligned in places. So, I guess I take my trips to add value in terms of those POIs, road characteristics (lanes, speed limits, condition), turn-restrictions, etc. Not to mention, it's been fun going out there and seeing places I've never been. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 03:16 +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=13.03175lon=77.56565zoom=17layers=M before the conference I did a rough sketch from satellite imagery. On arrival at the spot I found that the ground reality was totally at variance with the satellite imagery - and I got lost! Seems the imagery got outdated. it did not 'get' outdated - imagery for most of India is 2-3 years old. If someone had perfectly mapped that area a few years ago and it got completely outdated in the meantime - you would get into the exact same problem. Taking your opinion further would mean we shouldn't map anything at all because the map data might get outdated. how do you come to that conclusion? if you are local, you will map the changes - if you are using a satellite, you only *see* the changes once in 2-3 years What your example really tells us is that you shouldn't repair existing OSM data from (probably outdated) imagery without local knowledge. repair or map what I object to is mapping a place one has no intention of visiting Fine, seems you don't like the wiki principle ... never heard of the wiki principle - if this implies that since everyone has edit writes, anyone can write rubbish - then I don't like it. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
It is good news that Bing aerials are available. The bad news is that Bing has made exactly the same mistake as Google, who has managed to misplace aerials in some areas in the beginning of September 2009. They are shifted about 20-25 meters, which makes them quite unusable for tracing.anything more than big roads. Maybe they use same flawed source for aerials? Affected area is Estonia, for example, and also some surrounding regions. It is easily seen even in Google and Bing own map services - when you switch to hybrid view. I put my quick analysis with examples to http://www.maakaart.ee/index.php/summary-in-english/google-and-bing-maps-errors -- Jaak Laineste ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Jaak Laineste wrote: It is good news that Bing aerials are available. The bad news is that Bing has made exactly the same mistake as Google, who has managed to misplace aerials in some areas in the beginning of September 2009. They are shifted about 20-25 meters, which makes them quite unusable for tracing.anything more than big roads. Maybe they use same flawed source for aerials? Affected area is Estonia, for example, and also some surrounding regions. It is easily seen even in Google and Bing own map services - when you switch to hybrid view. I put my quick analysis with examples to http://www.maakaart.ee/index.php/summary-in-english/google-and-bing-maps-errors Others have noticed it. Among them : http://blog.samat.org/p/Bing-Imagery-Misaligned-at-Lower-Zooms#comment-17501 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/halfd/diary/12471 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
2010/12/7 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: Others have noticed it. Among them : http://blog.samat.org/p/Bing-Imagery-Misaligned-at-Lower-Zooms#comment-17501 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/halfd/diary/12471 In our case it is not even better in higher zooms. It seems really depend on specific area, as imagery seems to be put together in region-by-region basis. So could be different issues in different places, which could look similar. -- Jaak Laineste ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2 and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure. 2010/12/7 Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com 2010/12/7 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: Others have noticed it. Among them : http://blog.samat.org/p/Bing-Imagery-Misaligned-at-Lower-Zooms#comment-17501 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/halfd/diary/12471 In our case it is not even better in higher zooms. It seems really depend on specific area, as imagery seems to be put together in region-by-region basis. So could be different issues in different places, which could look similar. -- Jaak Laineste ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:51:13 +0100 Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: [..] Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2 and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure. Currently Merkaartor does not support this. Regards, Daniel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2 and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure. But how do you know which direction to offset and by how much? Is the Bing imagery really offset so uniformly, over large areas? Btw: They are shifted about 20-25 meters, which makes them quite unusable for tracing.anything more than big roads. I don't agree. If Bing is your only source for a city, then you could have either: 1) An entire city mapped in great detail, uniformly offset by 25m from reality 2) Nothing. Speaks for itself, I hope. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] bing error in josm
hi, I have downloaded the josm-tested and josm-latest. In bing wms I get this error: 'bing:bing' for this WMS layer does neither end in a '' nor with a '?'. If I choose 'fetch images' I get an exception. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] bing error in josm
Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote on 02/12/2010 at 22:53:31 +1100 subject [OSM-talk] bing error in josm : I have downloaded the josm-tested and josm-latest. In bing wms I get this error: 'bing:bing' for this WMS layer does neither end in a '' nor with a '?'. If I choose 'fetch images' I get an exception. Strange. It works for me. Try update again the plugin? Otherwise you can also use the slippymap plugin. It supports also the Bing imagery -- Sincerely Hendrik Oesterlin - email hendrikmail2...@yahoo.de ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
