[OSM-talk] NPE waterways
I noticed that a lot of waterways have recently been added with source=NPE. Were these traced, or was this an automated import? It seems that some of the existing (surveyed) work has been either ignored or broken in the process. i.e.: An existing section of stream with a bridge over it has been ignored rather than the newly added waterway being connected to it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.685369lon=-3.9486zoom=18layers=B00FTF And a stream has been moved so it is nolonger under the associated bridge: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4982lon=-3.52711zoom=16layers=0B0FTF Also, a number of streams are now marked which have been culverted since the NPE maps were produced. Maybe these should be tagged as needing a review? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
Steve, Steve Chilton has been adding all those welsh streams, pretty sure all of it traced in using potlatch from the NPE. When editing at zoom 14 with potlatch its not always easy to see small sections of existing data, which is probably what's happened here. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Hill Sent: 23 July 2008 11:40 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways I noticed that a lot of waterways have recently been added with source=NPE. Were these traced, or was this an automated import? It seems that some of the existing (surveyed) work has been either ignored or broken in the process. i.e.: An existing section of stream with a bridge over it has been ignored rather than the newly added waterway being connected to it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.685369lon=- 3.9486zoom=18layers=B00FTF And a stream has been moved so it is nolonger under the associated bridge: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4982lon=- 3.52711zoom=16layers=0B0FTF Also, a number of streams are now marked which have been culverted since the NPE maps were produced. Maybe these should be tagged as needing a review? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1568 - Release Date: 23/07/2008 6:55 AM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
Steve, Yep, it was me - in both cases, as you could see from the history popup. As Andy notes it is not always easy to see small sections of data at z14 in Potlatch (which you have to use for NPE work). The little existing piece is only just visible at z16 even and is obviously clear at your example of z18. So, apologies for missing it - I will go and rectify it this evening. As to the second example I am sorry for the result produced. Again I would note that when in Potlatch there is actually no notification of the existence of any bridge tagging (maybe I'll lodge a Potlatch trac request). That unclassified road just appears as a cased white line. In many instances streams just aren't given bridges (even where known). Could you please use your local knowledge to rectify that particular error/alignment? Because of the problem noted above I actually skipped the main urban area of Swansea - as the NPE was too difficult to interpret and the OSM data so thick on the ground to make it difficult to work there. I shall probably do so for Cardiff too. Incidentally they are the only two significantly densely urban mapping encountered on a virtual trip round the whole coastline of Wales so far. Finally, it is my view that source=NPE is implicitly tagging for review. It is now possible to use the OSMmapper tool from ITOworld to check where the tag has been used in your area and consider reviewing data there. For this reason I have rarely added any river/stream names from NPE because of: difficulty of knowing when named sectors start/finish, problems of dual language in Wales, and difficulty of sometimes reading the small text names on NPE. Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Manager of e-Learning Academic Development Centre for Learning and Quality Enhancement Middlesex University phone/fax: 020 8411 5355 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/hssc/staff/profiles/technical/chiltons.asp Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ SoC conference 2008: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cartographers08/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) Sent: 23 July 2008 11:50 To: 'Steve Hill'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways Steve, Steve Chilton has been adding all those welsh streams, pretty sure all of it traced in using potlatch from the NPE. When editing at zoom 14 with potlatch its not always easy to see small sections of existing data, which is probably what's happened here. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Hill Sent: 23 July 2008 11:40 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways I noticed that a lot of waterways have recently been added with source=NPE. Were these traced, or was this an automated import? It seems that some of the existing (surveyed) work has been either ignored or broken in the process. i.e.: An existing section of stream with a bridge over it has been ignored rather than the newly added waterway being connected to it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.685369lon=- 3.9486zoom=18layers=B00FTF And a stream has been moved so it is nolonger under the associated bridge: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4982lon=- 3.52711zoom=16layers=0B0FTF Also, a number of streams are now marked which have been culverted since the NPE maps were produced. Maybe these should be tagged as needing a review? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1568 - Release Date: 23/07/2008 6:55 AM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
[snip] On a slight etiquettey note I'd suggest that using the messaging system, rather than public lists, is a really great way to get in contact with people about their mapping work. Steve Chilton wrote: Finally, it is my view that source=NPE is implicitly tagging for review. +1 cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
Hi, On a slight etiquettey note I'd suggest that using the messaging system, rather than public lists, is a really great way to get in contact with people about their mapping work. Unless of course * you suspect that the criticism you have is not shared by everyone so you want to give them a chance to voice their opinion; * you think that whatever you're unhappy with is not only done by one mapper, but general practice (or might become general practice) * you're not comfortable enough with history access to find out exactly who did the bit you're unhappy with (and who perhaps only changed something else later) ... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
From my local knowledge of some parts of Wales, I'd agree strongly that NPE names are _frequently_ incorrect compared with modern labelling of towns/villages and other features, and are hence Not To Be Trusted Eg The mid-Wales town called Dolgelley from NPE and Dolgellau in Real Life I'm not sure what caused this disconnect from reality - I suspect some Anglo-centricity in the mid-century Ordnance Survey... PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Chilton Sent: 23 July 2008 12:34 For this reason I have rarely added any river/stream names from NPE because of: difficulty of knowing when named sectors start/finish, problems of dual language in Wales, and difficulty of sometimes reading the small text names on NPE. Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Steve Chilton wrote: As Andy notes it is not always easy to see small sections of data at z14 in Potlatch (which you have to use for NPE work). No problem - I just thought I'd mention that some on-the-ground review is needed for these waterways at some point (although it is better to have something there rather than nothing - many of the streams would be very difficult to survey unless someone feels like wading the length of them :). Something that would be very useful in Potlatch would be the ability to have the background zoom beyond it's highest resolution and just get interpolated to fit - the yahoo images are virtually unusable in Wales and over-zooming them might make them a bit more useful. Could you please use your local knowledge to rectify that particular error/alignment? I'll prod Steve Hosgood (who's sitting opposite me at the moment) since he surveyed the area originally. :) Unfortunately I'm not especially familiar with that area (although if necessary I can make a diversion that way one evening on my way home from work). Because of the problem noted above I actually skipped the main urban area of Swansea - as the NPE was too difficult to interpret and the OSM data so thick on the ground to make it difficult to work there. I can imagine. Also, in city centres, the NPE data is more likley to be out of date and doing on-the-ground surveying will be easier so it probably isn't as worthwhile anyway. Incidentally they are the only two significantly densely urban mapping encountered on a virtual trip round the whole coastline of Wales so far. I believe Cardiff has some reasonable Yahoo photos and people have been tracing them, so most of the roads are mapped, but I'm not sure how good the detail is. There are a couple of people working the Bridgend/Pencoed area (one of whome works as a courier I think, so is doing a lot of on-the-job surveying) and they seem to be doing a pretty good job. It's good to see 9 people in Swansea within a 12Km range of me now - when I started mapping I think there were about 3. Chris Jones (rollercow) can be blamed for many of them I think - he's been doing a good job of introducing members of the uni's computer society into the mapping effort. :) Finally, it is my view that source=NPE is implicitly tagging for review. It is now possible to use the OSMmapper tool from ITOworld to check where the tag has been used in your area and consider reviewing data there. Ok, fair enough. Is the expectation that the source=NPE tag will be removed after someone has reviewed the way, even if they didn't need to alter it? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: * you suspect that the criticism you have is not shared by everyone so you want to give them a chance to voice their opinion; * you think that whatever you're unhappy with is not only done by one mapper, but general practice (or might become general practice) * you're not comfortable enough with history access to find out exactly who did the bit you're unhappy with (and who perhaps only changed something else later) * the changes cover a reasonably large area and thus a large number of editors are affected and may wish to contribute to the discussion. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
Steve Hill wrote: Something that would be very useful in Potlatch would be the ability to have the background zoom beyond it's highest resolution and just get interpolated to fit - the yahoo images are virtually unusable in Wales and over-zooming them might make them a bit more useful. This is pretty much a FAQ, but Potlatch just provides what's offered by Yahoo by their API, nothing more, nothing less. The ability to stretch Landsat on the fly was for a while available through OpenAerialMap but I was asked to remove that for copyright concerns. NPE is a little different because I (not Yahoo) control the source! As it stands zoom 14 is pretty much the original resolution of the scans. It might be nice to offer them at z15 for ease of editing - it's not a priority for me, but patches are of course welcome. :) (Ideally to the source, not to Potlatch - I don't think it's the client's role to monkey with the imagery; that should be offered by the tile server.) Ok, fair enough. Is the expectation that the source=NPE tag will be removed after someone has reviewed the way, even if they didn't need to alter it? Certainly I've done that in the past if I've cycled/driven down a road previously sourced from NPE alone. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
Barnett, Phillip wrote: From my local knowledge of some parts of Wales, I'd agree strongly that NPE names are _frequently_ incorrect compared with modern labelling of towns/villages and other features, and are hence Not To Be Trusted Though if you understand something about Welsh orthography and pronunciation it's often pretty easy to reverse engineer the proper name from NPE. Follow-ups to talk-gb, I think. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
Steve Hill wrote: * the changes cover a reasonably large area and thus a large number of editors are affected and may wish to contribute to the discussion. * though with NPE the reasonably large area is pretty clearly going to be talk-gb, not talk :p Seriously, it wasn't solely directed at this discussion - the more people are reminded of our clever messaging system, the better - but IMO (and only that) it's still good practice to contact first, then post later if you feel it's needed. If nothing else, people tend to react better to personal contact than to third-person discussion on a busy mailing list. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: * though with NPE the reasonably large area is pretty clearly going to be talk-gb, not talk :p Ok, good point :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
