Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Jon Burgess]

On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 00:09 +, martin dodge wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa Lawrence, OS
> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
> 

The map in his screenshot must be from quite some time ago. The same
area of central London now has considerably more data

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5183&lon=-0.1387&zoom=14&layers=0BFT

Jon



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[J.D. Schmidt]

Jon Burgess skrev:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 00:09 +, martin dodge wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa Lawrence, OS
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
>> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>>
> 
> The map in his screenshot must be from quite some time ago. The same
> area of central London now has considerably more data
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5183&lon=-0.1387&zoom=14&layers=0BFT
> 
>   Jon

Hey, what do you expect from someone who is used to a 6 month timeframe 
before new features in the landscape has been mapped, processed and 
included in the mastermap ? Of course she included an old rendering, 
most probably from the London Map Party.

And lets for fun just say, that she knew that there was almost complete 
coverage when she prepared the presentation - Why show that, why promote 
something that can achieve the same goals for the user, is more 
adaptable, with far fewer limitations on possible usage, AND has been 
around for longer. Better show something that looks "awfull" compared to 
what they are peddling, and not say anything at all about it being an 
outdated snapshot from way back.
I think this procedure is actually taught at all the major business 
colleges, in the course "F.U.D. 101". Mandatory curriculum if you want 
to work in Marketing for the OS.

Dutch



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Jo]

martin dodge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa Lawrence, OS
> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>
> cheers
> martin
>   
What slide 46 is trying to convey is: we know about these amateurs over 
there, but our stuff is better. I would have liked it a lot better if 
they would have been saying. Hey look: these guys are doing some great 
work. We can't  possibly keep up with them in the long run. Let's find a 
way to work together. AND way.

Polyglot

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Richard Fairhurst]

martin dodge wrote:

> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa  
> Lawrence, OS
> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/ 
> VL_why_place_matters.pdf
> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46

That's rather nice!

Mrs F points out, however, that the photo in slide 32 ("22 Pine  
Street, Swindon") is almost certainly not in Swindon, and indeed  
there is no Pine Street in Swindon. So I'd be very wary of taking the  
slide's suggestion to route ambulances using OS data. Much more  
reliable to use OSM. ;)

cheers
Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[80n]

On Jan 11, 2008 8:18 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> martin dodge wrote:
>
> > Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa
> > Lawrence, OS
> > http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/
> > VL_why_place_matters.pdf
> > with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>
> That's rather nice!
>
> Mrs F points out, however, that the photo in slide 32 ("22 Pine
> Street, Swindon") is almost certainly not in Swindon, and indeed
> there is no Pine Street in Swindon. So I'd be very wary of taking the
> slide's suggestion to route ambulances using OS data. Much more
> reliable to use OSM. ;)
>

And on slide 42, Wellington is a place in Somerset, not Northumberland.

80n


>
> cheers
> Richard
>
> ___
> 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] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Jo]

80n wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 8:18 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
>
> martin dodge wrote:
>
> > Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa
> > Lawrence, OS
> > http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/
> 
> > VL_why_place_matters.pdf
> > with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>
> That's rather nice!
>
> Mrs F points out, however, that the photo in slide 32 ("22 Pine
> Street, Swindon") is almost certainly not in Swindon, and indeed
> there is no Pine Street in Swindon. So I'd be very wary of taking the
> slide's suggestion to route ambulances using OS data. Much more
> reliable to use OSM. ;)
>
>
> And on slide 42, Wellington is a place in Somerset, not Northumberland.
42, wasn't that the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the 
Universe, and Everything?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Nick Black]

We should catalogue the errors and send them back into the OS so they
can do better next time.

On Jan 11, 2008 8:47 AM, 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 8:18 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > martin dodge wrote:
> >
> > > Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa
> > > Lawrence, OS
> > > http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/
> > > VL_why_place_matters.pdf
> > > with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
> >
> > That's rather nice!
> >
> > Mrs F points out, however, that the photo in slide 32 ("22 Pine
> > Street, Swindon") is almost certainly not in Swindon, and indeed
> > there is no Pine Street in Swindon. So I'd be very wary of taking the
> > slide's suggestion to route ambulances using OS data. Much more
> > reliable to use OSM. ;)
> >
>
> And on slide 42, Wellington is a place in Somerset, not Northumberland.
>
> 80n
>
> >
> > cheers
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
>



-- 
Nick Black

http://www.blacksworld.net

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Artem Pavlenko]

On 11 Jan 2008, at 09:22, Nick Black wrote:

> We should catalogue the errors and send them back into the OS so they
> can do better next time.

We can time how long it would take them to fix it.

>
> On Jan 11, 2008 8:47 AM, 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2008 8:18 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> martin dodge wrote:
>>>
 Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa
 Lawrence, OS
 http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/
 VL_why_place_matters.pdf
 with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>>>
>>> That's rather nice!
>>>
>>> Mrs F points out, however, that the photo in slide 32 ("22 Pine
>>> Street, Swindon") is almost certainly not in Swindon, and indeed
>>> there is no Pine Street in Swindon. So I'd be very wary of taking  
>>> the
>>> slide's suggestion to route ambulances using OS data. Much more
>>> reliable to use OSM. ;)
>>>
>>
>> And on slide 42, Wellington is a place in Somerset, not  
>> Northumberland.
>>
>> 80n
>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Nick Black
> 
> http://www.blacksworld.net
>
> ___
> 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] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[J.D. Schmidt]

Nick Black skrev:
> We should catalogue the errors and send them back into the OS so they
> can do better next time.

Just send them a dump of the DB, and then look for a CC-by-SA OSM 
copyright notice on the OS Mastermap, sometime within the next 6 month.

Dutch

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[David Earl]

On 11/01/2008 00:55, Jon Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 00:09 +, martin dodge wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa Lawrence, OS
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
>> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>>
> 
> The map in his screenshot must be from quite some time ago. The same
> area of central London now has considerably more data

I think that misses the point. There are still many, many other areas 
where there is still just as little data, but that's not the point either.

The key thing is 'how do you know?'. If you look at the current coverage 
of that London area, it probably looks quite convincing now, whereas in 
her slide it was obviously incomplete, yet I bet it isn't (in fact, I 
know it isn't - there are numerous missing streets in the densely mapped 
central London). How would I know this? How do I know whether I can 
trust this map or not? (*)

This was and remains one of my key concerns about OSM as a project. I've 
said before and I'll say again: we need a way of asserting "this area is 
complete" (for one or more definitions of completeness).

Incidentally, this is exacerbated by the lazy rendering rule for Mapnik 
- I was puzzled when someone said to me the other day "why is this 
housing estate not connected to the rest of the road network?". It was; 
but adjacent Mapnik tiles were inconsistent (both laterally and by zoom 
level - and this wasn't a recently mapped area). You may not think this 
matters, but I think this is a public face and it causes further 
confusion and mistrust.

David


(* And how would I know how to fill in the gaps if I was there without 
revisiting every already mapped street?).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Artem Pavlenko]

On 11 Jan 2008, at 11:21, David Earl wrote:

> On 11/01/2008 00:55, Jon Burgess wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 00:09 +, martin dodge wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa  
>>> Lawrence, OS
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/ 
>>> VL_why_place_matters.pdf
>>> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>>>
>>
>> The map in his screenshot must be from quite some time ago. The same
>> area of central London now has considerably more data
>
> I think that misses the point. There are still many, many other areas
> where there is still just as little data, but that's not the point  
> either.
>
> The key thing is 'how do you know?'. If you look at the current  
> coverage
> of that London area, it probably looks quite convincing now,  
> whereas in
> her slide it was obviously incomplete, yet I bet it isn't (in fact, I
> know it isn't - there are numerous missing streets in the densely  
> mapped
> central London). How would I know this? How do I know whether I can
> trust this map or not? (*)
>
> This was and remains one of my key concerns about OSM as a project.  
> I've
> said before and I'll say again: we need a way of asserting "this  
> area is
> complete" (for one or more definitions of completeness).

I see your concerns. Having some kind of completeness test and be  
able to say : this area is 'complete' would be a strong point.
On the other hand, is Wikipedia complete? I don't think so. Nothing  
is compete:)

>
> Incidentally, this is exacerbated by the lazy rendering rule for  
> Mapnik

What do you mean by 'lazy' rule?  AFAIK, all available hardware is  
working hard day an night :)

> - I was puzzled when someone said to me the other day "why is this
> housing estate not connected to the rest of the road network?". It  
> was;
> but adjacent Mapnik tiles were inconsistent (both laterally and by  
> zoom
> level - and this wasn't a recently mapped area). You may not think  
> this
> matters, but I think this is a public face and it causes further
> confusion and mistrust.

We can certainly improve here. Suggestions ?

Artem

>
> David
>
>
> (* And how would I know how to fill in the gaps if I was there without
> revisiting every already mapped street?).
>
> ___
> 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] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Chris Hill]

The presentation by the CEO of the OS shows that she takes OSM *very* 
seriously, perhaps even seriously enough to show our work in a bad light.
 
cheers,
Chris

- Original Message 
> From: martin dodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Friday, 11 January, 2008 12:09:59 AM
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa
> Lawrence,
> 
 OS
> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
> 
> cheers
> martin
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 




  __
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Martin Trautmann]

In-Reply-To: 

On 2008-01-11 12:49, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> I've been surprised just how much extra data can be added
> just by taking a little time over each street and I've found a few features
> that really should have been on the map already, despite being less than
> half a mile from my home.
>
> I'm not suggesting for one minute that the verification task is easy or
> quick, but it is necessary.

Is OSM that far that we need verification and quality ensurance?

We are still far from completeness, which might be a primary goal.

I checked two of the major federal states in Germany by now, comparing the
data with other street lists (maps, addresses etc.)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/North_Rhine-Westphalia
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg

As long as we got less than 50 % of the most important street names (and
Germany is about 10 %) I do not mind yet that much about verification.

Don't get me wrong: verification is important. But I feel that precision, 
vandalism (version management) or licensing are equal and secondary goals. OSM 
may have a major strength just as a good wiki when it offers a reasonable base, 
while it may be much more up to date than man other sources. 

Is there any comparison about the amount of data within current commercial
systems, compared to OSM?

- Martin

-- 
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger?did=10

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[David Earl]

On 11/01/2008 13:00, Artem Pavlenko wrote:

>> (a) Mapnik works on planet, yes?
> 
> No, it works on postgis db which is populated with osm2pgsql from planet.

Yes, I know that. I meant that it is coming from planet, not directly 
derived from the main database like osmarender.

>> So perhaps use the planet diffs to determine areas which have changed 
>> and proactively mark all such areas dirty.
> 
> The problem is how to merge planet diff into postgis , I think Jonb has 
> done some work/research in this area.
> Are there existing tools (osmosis?) that given a planet diff would 
> return 'dirty' areas?

Everything listed in a planet diff is by definition dirty, yes. I don't 
think you;d need to change the rendering process at all - keep on 
converting the full planet to database; just have a new means for 
marking dirty areas - derived from the lat/lons of all nodes in the 
planet diff corresponding to the current planet, plus the lat/lons of 
all nodes of all ways listed in the diff.

David

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Artem Pavlenko]

On 11 Jan 2008, at 12:23, David Earl wrote:

> On 11/01/2008 11:48, Artem Pavlenko wrote:
>>> Incidentally, this is exacerbated by the lazy rendering rule for  
>>> Mapnik
>> What do you mean by 'lazy' rule?  AFAIK, all available hardware is  
>> working hard day an night :)
>
> I mean the way in which a tile isn't rendered until (after) it is  
> looked at rather than proactively when an area changes.
OK, I think this is right. (better check with Jon)
>
>>> - I was puzzled when someone said to me the other day "why is this
>>> housing estate not connected to the rest of the road network?".  
>>> It was;
>>> but adjacent Mapnik tiles were inconsistent (both laterally and  
>>> by zoom
>>> level - and this wasn't a recently mapped area). You may not  
>>> think this
>>> matters, but I think this is a public face and it causes further
>>> confusion and mistrust.
>> We can certainly improve here. Suggestions ?
>
> I would try three things:
>
> (a) Mapnik works on planet, yes?

No, it works on postgis db which is populated with osm2pgsql from  
planet.
I'm sure you'd agree that using planet directly is not a viable  
solution. I know [EMAIL PROTECTED] clients are using APIs but this is hardly a  
solution either. I would go further to suggest that current [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
setup  
uses more bandwidth and cpu (through API usage) then actual uploading  
new data, making API slow and not-user friendly. Have we got some  
stats ?


I also worry that amount of heat generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] clients is  
contributing to the global warming


> So perhaps use the planet diffs to determine areas which have  
> changed and proactively mark all such areas dirty.

The problem is how to merge planet diff into postgis , I think Jonb  
has done some work/research in this area.
Are there existing tools (osmosis?) that given a planet diff would  
return 'dirty' areas?

>
> (b) for all dirty areas, render at all zoom levels (perhaps down to  
> zoom 12, like osmarender) and do the 8 immediately neighbouring  
> tiles of dirty tiles as well for say zoom 13 or 14 and higher.  
> (Many tiles, neighbouring tiles will be dirty anyway, so this  
> amounts to adding one tile around each group of two-dimensionally  
> contiguous dirty tiles.

Sure, this is certainly possible.
>
> (c) install updated tiles at one go so far as possible.
>

This is how it works already. There is no hidden tiles .
> David

Artem

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Lauri Hahne]

On 11/01/2008, tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Trust the identical free map made by a bunch of geeks with cheap GPS
> and where the reliability, data quality isn't clear, or by us, where
> we document and guarantee the quality. Who would you go for if you had
> a business?
>

Openstreetmap brings new kind of problems. What if you put a slippy
map on your page and take the tiles from OSM's servers. Then you risk
the possibility that someone edits that part of the map to add some
unwanted content to your page.


-- 
Lauri Hahne

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

David Earl wrote:
>Sent: 11 January 2008 11:22 AM
>To: Jon Burgess
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence
>talk
>
>On 11/01/2008 00:55, Jon Burgess wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 00:09 +, martin dodge wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa Lawrence,
>OS
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
>>> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>>>
>>
>> The map in his screenshot must be from quite some time ago. The same
>> area of central London now has considerably more data
>
>I think that misses the point. There are still many, many other areas
>where there is still just as little data, but that's not the point either.
>
>The key thing is 'how do you know?'. If you look at the current coverage
>of that London area, it probably looks quite convincing now, whereas in
>her slide it was obviously incomplete, yet I bet it isn't (in fact, I
>know it isn't - there are numerous missing streets in the densely mapped
>central London). How would I know this? How do I know whether I can
>trust this map or not? (*)
>
>This was and remains one of my key concerns about OSM as a project. I've
>said before and I'll say again: we need a way of asserting "this area is
>complete" (for one or more definitions of completeness).
>

I totally agree with your points David and I've had them voiced directly to
me by people who have tried the default map render for the first time
(incidentally the name finder came in for some flak due to its data not
matching the map content - we need to be careful there too). However I'm
less concerned about validity provided that we don't try to oversell our
mapping as "complete" before its been validated. The only way that we are
going to individually or collectively state the completeness of a specific
area is to carry out a verification process. It doesn't have to be done by
third parties or even different contributors but it does need to be done by
someone. I have started to do it for Sutton Coldfield and it can only be
achieved on foot. I've been surprised just how much extra data can be added
just by taking a little time over each street and I've found a few features
that really should have been on the map already, despite being less than
half a mile from my home.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that the verification task is easy or
quick, but it is necessary.

We need a simple tag to display verification, perhaps the username and a
date, say verification=blackadder_20080111 or similar. That doesn't stop
someone falsifying validation but then I don't really think falsification is
in the OSM mindset to begin with and so probably not something to be really
concerned about for the majority of the data. User feedback would in my
expectation continue to spot problem areas if they crop up.

>Incidentally, this is exacerbated by the lazy rendering rule for Mapnik
>- I was puzzled when someone said to me the other day "why is this
>housing estate not connected to the rest of the road network?". It was;
>but adjacent Mapnik tiles were inconsistent (both laterally and by zoom
>level - and this wasn't a recently mapped area). You may not think this
>matters, but I think this is a public face and it causes further
>confusion and mistrust.
>
>David
>
>
>(* And how would I know how to fill in the gaps if I was there without
>revisiting every already mapped street?).
>


Cheers

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[David Earl]

On 11/01/2008 11:48, Artem Pavlenko wrote:
>> Incidentally, this is exacerbated by the lazy rendering rule for Mapnik
> 
> What do you mean by 'lazy' rule?  AFAIK, all available hardware is 
> working hard day an night :)

I mean the way in which a tile isn't rendered until (after) it is looked 
at rather than proactively when an area changes.

>> - I was puzzled when someone said to me the other day "why is this
>> housing estate not connected to the rest of the road network?". It was;
>> but adjacent Mapnik tiles were inconsistent (both laterally and by zoom
>> level - and this wasn't a recently mapped area). You may not think this
>> matters, but I think this is a public face and it causes further
>> confusion and mistrust.
> 
> We can certainly improve here. Suggestions ?

I would try three things:

(a) Mapnik works on planet, yes? So perhaps use the planet diffs to 
determine areas which have changed and proactively mark all such areas 
dirty.

(b) for all dirty areas, render at all zoom levels (perhaps down to zoom 
12, like osmarender) and do the 8 immediately neighbouring tiles of 
dirty tiles as well for say zoom 13 or 14 and higher. (Many tiles, 
neighbouring tiles will be dirty anyway, so this amounts to adding one 
tile around each group of two-dimensionally contiguous dirty tiles.

(c) install updated tiles at one go so far as possible.

David

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[tim]

On Jan 11, 2008 7:48 AM, Jo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What slide 46 is trying to convey is: we know about these amateurs over
> there, but our stuff is better.

I think the main point of that slide is:

 "these amateurs *will* are as good as us, but you can trust us more!"

Trust the identical free map made by a bunch of geeks with cheap GPS
and where the reliability, data quality isn't clear, or by us, where
we document and guarantee the quality. Who would you go for if you had
a business?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[David Earl]

On 11/01/2008 12:49, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> (incidentally the name finder came in for some flak due to its data not
> matching the map content - we need to be careful there too). 

Indeed, it is embarrassingly out of date now, but I just don't have the 
necessary hardware to process the size of the file regularly any more. 
This will work on diffs in due course, but it is going to need a few 
days more hacking to get this working.

David

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Lambertus]

Artem Pavlenko wrote:
> Marking 'dirty' areas by processing planet diff sounds reasonable but  
> we only generate diffs weekly, afaik.
> My understanding is that generating planet and planet diffs takes  
> very long time at the moment which brings us back to the eternal
> quest of improving main DB. I'm not even suggesting to use postgresql :D
> 
There are hourly diffs available in: http://planet.openstreetmap.org/hourly/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Artem Pavlenko]

On 11 Jan 2008, at 13:09, David Earl wrote:

> On 11/01/2008 13:00, Artem Pavlenko wrote:
>
>>> (a) Mapnik works on planet, yes?
>> No, it works on postgis db which is populated with osm2pgsql from  
>> planet.
>
> Yes, I know that. I meant that it is coming from planet, not  
> directly derived from the main database like osmarender.
>
>>> So perhaps use the planet diffs to determine areas which have  
>>> changed and proactively mark all such areas dirty.
>> The problem is how to merge planet diff into postgis , I think  
>> Jonb has done some work/research in this area.
>> Are there existing tools (osmosis?) that given a planet diff would  
>> return 'dirty' areas?
>
> Everything listed in a planet diff is by definition dirty, yes. I  
> don't think you;d need to change the rendering process at all -  
> keep on converting the full planet to database; just have a new  
> means for marking dirty areas - derived from the lat/lons of all  
> nodes in the planet diff corresponding to the current planet, plus  
> the lat/lons of all nodes of all ways listed in the diff.

Marking 'dirty' areas by processing planet diff sounds reasonable but  
we only generate diffs weekly, afaik.
My understanding is that generating planet and planet diffs takes  
very long time at the moment which brings us back to the eternal
quest of improving main DB. I'm not even suggesting to use postgresql :D

> David


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Stephen Coast]

On 11 Jan 2008, at 04:39, J.D. Schmidt wrote:

> Jon Burgess skrev:
>> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 00:09 +, martin dodge wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa  
>>> Lawrence, OS
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
>>> with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
>>>
>>
>> The map in his screenshot must be from quite some time ago. The same
>> area of central London now has considerably more data
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5183&lon=-0.1387&zoom=14&layers=0BFT
>>
>>  Jon
>
> Hey, what do you expect from someone who is used to a 6 month  
> timeframe
> before new features in the landscape has been mapped, processed and
> included in the mastermap ? Of course she included an old rendering,
> most probably from the London Map Party.

Interestingly no - it's missing large sections that were done that  
weekend. Specifically 80n's bit between Edgware Road and Baker  
Streetish as I remember.

have fun,

SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Stephen Coast]

oh and while we're pointing out mistakes, roads around the US embassy  
have been closed for going on 10 years (slide 19).

On 11 Jan 2008, at 16:51, Stephen Coast wrote:

>
> On 11 Jan 2008, at 04:39, J.D. Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Jon Burgess skrev:
>>> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 00:09 +, martin dodge wrote:
 Hi,

 Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa
 Lawrence, OS
 http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
 with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46

>>>
>>> The map in his screenshot must be from quite some time ago. The same
>>> area of central London now has considerably more data
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5183&lon=-0.1387&zoom=14&layers=0BFT
>>>
>>> Jon
>>
>> Hey, what do you expect from someone who is used to a 6 month
>> timeframe
>> before new features in the landscape has been mapped, processed and
>> included in the mastermap ? Of course she included an old rendering,
>> most probably from the London Map Party.
>
> Interestingly no - it's missing large sections that were done that
> weekend. Specifically 80n's bit between Edgware Road and Baker
> Streetish as I remember.
>
> have fun,
>
> SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>

have fun,

SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:19:32PM +, Artem Pavlenko wrote:
> Marking 'dirty' areas by processing planet diff sounds reasonable but  
> we only generate diffs weekly, afaik.
> My understanding is that generating planet and planet diffs takes  
> very long time at the moment which brings us back to the eternal
> quest of improving main DB. I'm not even suggesting to use postgresql :D

Er, we do hourly diffs now, using osmosis. 

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Artem Pavlenko]

On 11 Jan 2008, at 13:28, Christopher Schmidt wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:19:32PM +, Artem Pavlenko wrote:
>> Marking 'dirty' areas by processing planet diff sounds reasonable but
>> we only generate diffs weekly, afaik.
>> My understanding is that generating planet and planet diffs takes
>> very long time at the moment which brings us back to the eternal
>> quest of improving main DB. I'm not even suggesting to use  
>> postgresql :D
>
> Er, we do hourly diffs now, using osmosis.

Great, cheers.
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta
>
> ___
> 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] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

Martin Trautmann wrote:
>Sent: 11 January 2008 1:23 PM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence
>talk
>
>In-Reply-To:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On 2008-01-11 12:49, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>> I've been surprised just how much extra data can be added
>> just by taking a little time over each street and I've found a few
>features
>> that really should have been on the map already, despite being less than
>> half a mile from my home.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting for one minute that the verification task is easy or
>> quick, but it is necessary.
>
>Is OSM that far that we need verification and quality ensurance?
>
>We are still far from completeness, which might be a primary goal.
>
>I checked two of the major federal states in Germany by now, comparing the
>data with other street lists (maps, addresses etc.)
>
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/North_Rhine-Westphalia
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg
>
>As long as we got less than 50 % of the most important street names (and
>Germany is about 10 %) I do not mind yet that much about verification.

Ah, but some areas are more than 90% "complete" or in some cases 110%
depending upon the amount of the map you look at and do a like for like
comparison. My local area is probably at the 95+% stage (when compared with
typical street level maps) so verification is a logical next step. At other
times of course I'm mapping locations which have much less than 50% coverage
at this time.

OSM will never have a unified level of coverage but then most of the
competition doesn't either, just look at the Caribbean islands in the
different map engines and you will see that coverage is totally hit and miss
there too. Many other bigger examples if you look around the world.

>
>Don't get me wrong: verification is important. But I feel that precision,
>vandalism (version management) or licensing are equal and secondary goals.
>OSM may have a major strength just as a good wiki when it offers a
>reasonable base, while it may be much more up to date than man other
>sources.
>

Agreed these are important areas too. Each to his own and his own
capabilities. All of it needs doing at some time or other.

>Is there any comparison about the amount of data within current commercial
>systems, compared to OSM?
>

Making comparisons is a rather fruitless exercise because it's extremely
difficult to know how good the data is between providers. It might look like
a good map but is it really? The comments made recently regarding China and
the AND data there are an eye-opener.

>- Martin
>
>--
>Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
>Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger?did=10
>


Cheers

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Artem Pavlenko]

On 11 Jan 2008, at 13:35, Lambertus wrote:

> Artem Pavlenko wrote:
>> Marking 'dirty' areas by processing planet diff sounds reasonable  
>> but  we only generate diffs weekly, afaik.
>> My understanding is that generating planet and planet diffs takes   
>> very long time at the moment which brings us back to the eternal
>> quest of improving main DB. I'm not even suggesting to use  
>> postgresql :D
> There are hourly diffs available in: http:// 
> planet.openstreetmap.org/hourly/

thanks,
A


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Nick Black]

On Jan 11, 2008 11:58 AM, Chris Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The presentation by the CEO of the OS shows that she takes OSM *very* 
> seriously, perhaps even seriously enough to show our work in a bad light.

If I was the CEO of a large mapping company and I took OSM seriously I
would either by trying to implement OSM myself (GetMapping), trying to
integrate the concepts of OSM into my own db (AND), supporting OSM
(Multimap, AND).  If I took it *very* seriously, I would be saying
nothing at all (Google, Navteq, Teleatlast) whilst deploying my
engineers to study the source code.

The whole presentation is a "look - I get web 2.0 too".  When I saw VL
present the same "we are the OS" presentation in 2006, it was all
ambulance routing and ESRI Arc GIS.  The inclusion a few OSM slides
along with Google Earth and Facebook screenshots, is VL tyring to show
that she's ontop of things and ready for the next knighthood/civil
service promotion.

Its the same as the Queen releasing her Christmas speech on YouTube.
I don't think HRH lies awake at night worrying about the effect
YouTube is having on the BBC.


>
> cheers,
> Chris
>
> - Original Message 
> > From: martin dodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> > Sent: Friday, 11 January, 2008 12:09:59 AM
> > Subject: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just found an interesting set of slides of a talk by Vanessa
> > Lawrence,
> >
>  OS
> > http://www.w3.org/2007/06/eGov-dc/presentations/VL_why_place_matters.pdf
> > with some prominent mentions for OSM. I particularly liked slide 46
> >
> > cheers
> > martin
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >
>
>
>
>
>   __
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Nick Black

http://www.blacksworld.net

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why place matters, slides from Vanessa Lawrence talk

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Jan 11, 2008 2:12 PM, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/01/2008 12:49, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> > (incidentally the name finder came in for some flak due to its data not
> > matching the map content - we need to be careful there too).
>
> Indeed, it is embarrassingly out of date now, but I just don't have the
> necessary hardware to process the size of the file regularly any more.
> This will work on diffs in due course, but it is going to need a few
> days more hacking to get this working.

The NL tileserver has mapnik output no older than two days. Hypercube
was (is?) running a global mapnik renderer updated daily. However, I'm
not sure how either of these servers would handle the kind of load we
would get if we redirected the main site to them...

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk