Re: [talk-au] TomTom - OSM Collaboration
Welcome aboard Will, There is no shortage of tasks to make a better Australian map in OSM. There are plenty of map roulette challenges for updating addresses, fixing deprecated tagging on features and fixing road tagging to name just a few. https://maproulette.org/dashboard/ The community is also very grateful for folks 'in the know' who may be able to source data in truly open formats that can be ingested into OSM using the normal import procedures or via the RapID editor (for ESRI community layers) https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Esri-Arc GIS-FAQ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Esri/ArcGIS_Datasets - as you can see there are no layers from Australia. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines - import guidelines If there is going to be concerted effort by Tom Tom then it might also pay to have a read of the organised editing guidelines and maybe set up a wiki page with some details of the company intentions (and maybe a list of OSM editors that will be editing on behalf of Tom Tom. We look forward to your edits and conversations in the mailing lists. Cheers - Phil From: William Ireland Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2022 10:12 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] TomTom - OSM Collaboration Hi Australia OSM Community, My name is Will from TomTom. From one mapper to another, I can say that we truly admire how the OSM community collaborates to shape a map product that benefits everyone, and we would love to be a part of it. I would like to let you know that we are planning on contributing to OSM by providing meaningful leads to improve map quality and to locate missing features. Some initial ideas include but are not limited to providing leads from media sources extracted by our web scraping tool or locating missing highways from new housing developments. We would love to hear from you. What do you think of these ideas? And are there any other areas where you need assistance or fields we can collaborate on? We are open to all suggestions and ideas. As for me, I am based here in Australia and happy to answer any questions or be part of any discussions. Looking forward to hearing from you, Will ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] TomTom - OSM Collaboration
Hi Australia OSM Community, My name is Will from TomTom. From one mapper to another, I can say that we truly admire how the OSM community collaborates to shape a map product that benefits everyone, and we would love to be a part of it. I would like to let you know that we are planning on contributing to OSM by providing meaningful leads to improve map quality and to locate missing features. Some initial ideas include but are not limited to providing leads from media sources extracted by our web scraping tool or locating missing highways from new housing developments. We would love to hear from you. What do you think of these ideas? And are there any other areas where you need assistance or fields we can collaborate on? We are open to all suggestions and ideas. As for me, I am based here in Australia and happy to answer any questions or be part of any discussions. Looking forward to hearing from you, Will ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
On Sep 6, 2022, at 12:36 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Bicentennial Nation Trail is broken by states (and that is a horse trail, > a mtb trail and a hiking trail). It is not well mapped. > > The Overland Track is broken into segments - the 'normal' day lengths for > hikers. > > The Munda Biddi could also be broken into segments - > For example ... Yes, to sort-of quote myself, "Yes, that's one good way to do it, but I'm sure there are other ways, too..." (which would make good sense for well-articulated reasons). I think there might only need to be one "master" relation, that's the one (a kind of super-relation) that ties them all together. Distinctions between north and south would be made as sub-relations, "one each" and both in the master. (I'm more familiar with bicycle and public transit routes, not so much hiking routes, which have their own peculiarities with the various flavors of role tagging the give rises to "alternative" and "excursion"...). > This makes changes to it easier as you have to change one section and that is > then incorporated into each mater relation. This IS the idea for both "chunking" a big route into smaller components, as well as WELL crafting it according to the conventions for that type of relation (here, a hiking route): smaller components are "more manageable" and where one (designer / author) decides these edges of structuring can either simplify future management as changes occur, or make it more complex because it wasn't designed with those changes very well. Bottom line, take some time to design how a large, complex data object in OSM is designed and entered into OSM: its structure does matter, for both purposes of "how does this present to people?" (is it easy to understand?, as entered: does it render and route well?...) and "how sensible are the data to manage going forward?" Let me make the point clearly if I haven't already: these sorts of "good route relation design criteria" are not easy, come with practice, are aided by exactly this sort of community discussion (and eventual consensus) we are doing here now, and can go multiple directions and still be "widely correct." We are data architects of a sort here, and the way the thing is eventually designed and finally put together "only" has to "work," it doesn't have to be "perfect under all criteria, for everybody, forever." Any number of solutions can work just fine. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?
On 6/9/22 11:23, stevea wrote: I forgot to say earlier, so I add here and now: on really huge routes like this — thousands of kilometers long — it makes it more manageable for humans (and OSM software like JOSM and other tools / end-use cases like renderers and routers) to break up the route into logical sub-components. I'm thinking of examples I know in the USA, like Pacific Crest Trail or Appalachian Trail, where there are either "by state boundaries" kinds of "chunking," or designated by Trail Management (I think the PCT uses letters of the alphabet to denote segments). For Munda Biddi, you may want to inquire whether something like this "chunking" of the whole trail into smaller segments is already going on "officially," and mimic that in OSM. I will say that dealing with a single relation that contains thousands of elements (over 1500 things slow down and get unwieldy) are hard to deal with and do recall that there is a 2000-item limit for some data structures in OSM. I don't recommend putting more than 2000 ways into any single relation under any circumstances. I hope all this helps. The Bicentennial Nation Trail is broken by states (and that is a horse trail, a mtb trail and a hiking trail). It is not well mapped. The Overland Track is broken into segments - the 'normal' day lengths for hikers. The Munda Biddi could also be broken into segments - For example First relation: Perth to some point where the trail separates into a choice. This would be common for all variations. Second and third relations: from the above relation until they join Forth relation: common bit from the above to the next separation. Then I'd have 2 or 4 master relations: North, South etc. This makes changes to it easier as you have to change one section and that is then incorporated into each mater relation. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
