Re: [talk-au] In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map
On 14/5/23 09:47, cleary wrote: I agree with much of what you wrote, but not all. Your final sentence implies that you think that where OSM and the DCS NSW Base Map are different, then the latter must be correct and OSM wrong. I have been frustrated when I have visited locations and mapped features such as road names or road class (secondary/tertiary/unclassified etc) noted during my survey and then have someone change my contributions because they were contradicted by the DCS NSW Base Map. When I have subsequently investigated (usually by revisiting the location or by contacting the local council), I have found that the DCS Map contained outdated information that had not been updated - sometimes for many years. I think I did previously mention the OTC Overseas Telecommunications structure at 744 Carnarvon Highway at Moree - still on the DCS Base Map more than 30 years after it was decommissioned and the building re-purposed. Some things just do not get updated on the DCS Map. As I once mentioned on talk-au, when I visited Lake Mungo, the indigenous guide said that the lake had not been covered with water for about 15,000 years. My subsequent reading supports that claim. Nevertheless, DCS Base Map shows it no differently to lakes that are always full of water. I have come to see the DCS NSW Base Map as generally more accurate in "legal" matters such as surveyed land lots, boundaries etc but I would suggest that OSM can do a lot better in mapping natural features such as lakes, wetlands, and various forms of land cover. Excuse for 'Lake Mungo'.. ? Lake Mungo ... some sources say is is a 'dry lake' ... just that it has been an exception time between drinks? I have noticed that the DCS Base Map has 'Marine Rescue' stations rendered as SES - square peg in a round hole as they are not SES. I think 'Lake Mungo' may be the same rendering issue .. how do you show it? VRAs don't get a high level symbol on the DCS Base Map and have to be hunted out at fine zoom levels. Some with libraries and other things. I'd not be too hard on the DCS about 'lake Mungo' .. square peg in a round hole situation I think. I agree that the DCS NSW Base Map is a wonderful resource and has been very helpful. However it contains errors. It should not necessarily be considered as more authoritative than other sources, especially survey by individual mappers. I value the DCS NSW Base Map but, if there are differences in information, it should not be presumed that the DCS Map is to be preferred. On Sat, 13 May 2023, at 4:52 PM, Warin wrote: In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map? Some have criticized the DCS Base Map .. a response below. “We don’t want OSM to be a copy of the DCS Base Map”? Umm OSM has capability of far more than the DSC Base Map e.g. pubs, petrol stations, farm fields, vineyards etc. So it should be far more than the DCS Base Map. Where OSM is missing stuff that is in the DCS Base Map why should it not be copied? That is a gain for OSM. “The DCS Base Map is out of date”? So is the OSM data! I don’t see that point of this ‘argument’ at all. If something in OSM is ‘out of date’ then correct it. If something is missing from OSM but is in the DCS Base Map then copy it. Those who know it is out of date can correct it, arguing that it should not be added because ‘it may be out of date’ could be applied to all sources other than those sighted in the last day. Should any data that ‘may be out of date’ be rejected? I have found some things in the DCS Base Map to be more upto date than the DCS imagery having to resort to Maxar to confirm the existence of the objects. So the DCS Base Map maybe ‘out of date’ for some things but more ‘upto date’ for other things. Such are the joys of our changing world. “On the ground truth” Some take the view that they have been there and seen X. Ok, the DCS Base Map says Y.. Humm. Where this is some land form or land cover I take it the mapper involved has more expertise than those that contribute to the DCS Base Map to determine that land form or land cover. I would not put myself in that category. As an example the ability to determine an area is an arid wetland, I have no expertise to determined that and would take DCS Base Map as more authoritative than my poor observations. --- Me? I have added libraries (those facilities that lend books) from the DCS Base Map .. using a list from a copyright source to direct me to the area and then searching the DCS Base Map for it. The location and name comes from the DCS Base Map not the copyright source. This is not all the libraries as some are ‘private’ e.g. schools. But it has got at least most of the public ones into OSM. I call that a win for OSM. Mangroves. These are well defined by the DCS Base Map. I have been questioned as to how reliable they are .. well on 5 that I gone to those all appear to be accurate .. and others can be seen on imagery. So I am quite confident that these
Re: [talk-au] In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map
On 14/5/23 09:47, cleary wrote: I agree with much of what you wrote, but not all. Your final sentence implies that you think that where OSM and the DCS NSW Base Map are different, then the latter must be correct and OSM wrong. I have been frustrated when I have visited locations and mapped features such as road names or road class (secondary/tertiary/unclassified etc) noted during my survey and then have someone change my contributions because they were contradicted by the DCS NSW Base Map. When I have subsequently investigated (usually by revisiting the location or by contacting the local council), I have found that the DCS Map contained outdated information that had not been updated - sometimes for many years. I think I did previously mention the OTC Overseas Telecommunications structure at 744 Carnarvon Highway at Moree - still on the DCS Base Map more than 30 years after it was decommissioned and the building re-purposed. Some things just do not get updated on the DCS Map. As I once mentioned on talk-au, when I visited Lake Mungo, the indigenous guide said that the lake had not been covered with water for about 15,000 years. My subsequent reading supports that claim. Nevertheless, DCS Base Map shows it no differently to lakes that are always full of water. I have come to see the DCS NSW Base Map as generally more accurate in "legal" matters such as surveyed land lots, boundaries etc but I would suggest that OSM can do a lot better in mapping natural features such as lakes, wetlands, and various forms of land cover. I agree that the DCS NSW Base Map is a wonderful resource and has been very helpful. However it contains errors. It should not necessarily be considered as more authoritative than other sources, especially survey by individual mappers. I value the DCS NSW Base Map but, if there are differences in information, it should not be presumed that the DCS Map is to be preferred. I should have said .. where I come across a difference I usually either contact the mapper or seek another source. I have found mappers generally like to keep their idea of the land cover rather than the DCS one. Not something I am going to fight over. If someone wants to map a flood plain (DCS) as a swamp in OSM .. well it does render. Looks very pretty. For other things I usually find another source, some times it confirms the DCS sometimes not .. sometimes the other source is not clear... On Sat, 13 May 2023, at 4:52 PM, Warin wrote: In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map? Some have criticized the DCS Base Map .. a response below. “We don’t want OSM to be a copy of the DCS Base Map”? Umm OSM has capability of far more than the DSC Base Map e.g. pubs, petrol stations, farm fields, vineyards etc. So it should be far more than the DCS Base Map. Where OSM is missing stuff that is in the DCS Base Map why should it not be copied? That is a gain for OSM. “The DCS Base Map is out of date”? So is the OSM data! I don’t see that point of this ‘argument’ at all. If something in OSM is ‘out of date’ then correct it. If something is missing from OSM but is in the DCS Base Map then copy it. Those who know it is out of date can correct it, arguing that it should not be added because ‘it may be out of date’ could be applied to all sources other than those sighted in the last day. Should any data that ‘may be out of date’ be rejected? I have found some things in the DCS Base Map to be more upto date than the DCS imagery having to resort to Maxar to confirm the existence of the objects. So the DCS Base Map maybe ‘out of date’ for some things but more ‘upto date’ for other things. Such are the joys of our changing world. “On the ground truth” Some take the view that they have been there and seen X. Ok, the DCS Base Map says Y.. Humm. Where this is some land form or land cover I take it the mapper involved has more expertise than those that contribute to the DCS Base Map to determine that land form or land cover. I would not put myself in that category. As an example the ability to determine an area is an arid wetland, I have no expertise to determined that and would take DCS Base Map as more authoritative than my poor observations. --- Me? I have added libraries (those facilities that lend books) from the DCS Base Map .. using a list from a copyright source to direct me to the area and then searching the DCS Base Map for it. The location and name comes from the DCS Base Map not the copyright source. This is not all the libraries as some are ‘private’ e.g. schools. But it has got at least most of the public ones into OSM. I call that a win for OSM. Mangroves. These are well defined by the DCS Base Map. I have been questioned as to how reliable they are .. well on 5 that I gone to those all appear to be accurate .. and others can be seen on imagery. So I am quite confident that these can be transferred from the DCS Base Map into OSM. And I have copied other stuff, missing in
Re: [talk-au] In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map
I agree with much of what you wrote, but not all. Your final sentence implies that you think that where OSM and the DCS NSW Base Map are different, then the latter must be correct and OSM wrong. I have been frustrated when I have visited locations and mapped features such as road names or road class (secondary/tertiary/unclassified etc) noted during my survey and then have someone change my contributions because they were contradicted by the DCS NSW Base Map. When I have subsequently investigated (usually by revisiting the location or by contacting the local council), I have found that the DCS Map contained outdated information that had not been updated - sometimes for many years. I think I did previously mention the OTC Overseas Telecommunications structure at 744 Carnarvon Highway at Moree - still on the DCS Base Map more than 30 years after it was decommissioned and the building re-purposed. Some things just do not get updated on the DCS Map. As I once mentioned on talk-au, when I visited Lake Mungo, the indigenous guide said that the lake had not been covered with water for about 15,000 years. My subsequent reading supports that claim. Nevertheless, DCS Base Map shows it no differently to lakes that are always full of water. I have come to see the DCS NSW Base Map as generally more accurate in "legal" matters such as surveyed land lots, boundaries etc but I would suggest that OSM can do a lot better in mapping natural features such as lakes, wetlands, and various forms of land cover. I agree that the DCS NSW Base Map is a wonderful resource and has been very helpful. However it contains errors. It should not necessarily be considered as more authoritative than other sources, especially survey by individual mappers. I value the DCS NSW Base Map but, if there are differences in information, it should not be presumed that the DCS Map is to be preferred. On Sat, 13 May 2023, at 4:52 PM, Warin wrote: > In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map? Some have criticized the DCS Base > Map .. a response below. > > > > “We don’t want OSM to be a copy of the DCS Base Map”? Umm OSM has > capability of far more than the DSC Base Map e.g. pubs, petrol > stations, farm fields, vineyards etc. So it should be far more than the > DCS Base Map. Where OSM is missing stuff that is in the DCS Base Map > why should it not be copied? That is a gain for OSM. > > “The DCS Base Map is out of date”? So is the OSM data! I don’t see that > point of this ‘argument’ at all. If something in OSM is ‘out of date’ > then correct it. If something is missing from OSM but is in the DCS > Base Map then copy it. Those who know it is out of date can correct it, > arguing that it should not be added because ‘it may be out of date’ > could be applied to all sources other than those sighted in the last > day. Should any data that ‘may be out of date’ be rejected? I have > found some things in the DCS Base Map to be more upto date than the DCS > imagery having to resort to Maxar to confirm the existence of the > objects. So the DCS Base Map maybe ‘out of date’ for some things but > more ‘upto date’ for other things. Such are the joys of our changing > world. > > > > “On the ground truth” Some take the view that they have been there and > seen X. Ok, the DCS Base Map says Y.. Humm. Where this is some land > form or land cover I take it the mapper involved has more expertise > than those that contribute to the DCS Base Map to determine that land > form or land cover. I would not put myself in that category. As an > example the ability to determine an area is an arid wetland, I have no > expertise to determined that and would take DCS Base Map as more > authoritative than my poor observations. > > > > --- > > Me? > > I have added libraries (those facilities that lend books) from the DCS > Base Map .. using a list from a copyright source to direct me to the > area and then searching the DCS Base Map for it. The location and name > comes from the DCS Base Map not the copyright source. This is not all > the libraries as some are ‘private’ e.g. schools. But it has got at > least most of the public ones into OSM. I call that a win for OSM. > > > > Mangroves. These are well defined by the DCS Base Map. I have been > questioned as to how reliable they are .. well on 5 that I gone to > those all appear to be accurate .. and others can be seen on imagery. > So I am quite confident that these can be transferred from the DCS Base > Map into OSM. > > > > And I have copied other stuff, missing in OSM, from the DCS Base Map. > There is a lot of it! I plan on continuing to do so. The DCS Base Map > is a great resource that we should use. I have even found errors in OSM > from the DCS Base Map. > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map
In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map? Some have criticized the DCS Base Map .. a response below. “We don’t want OSM to be a copy of the DCS Base Map”? Umm OSM has capability of far more than the DSC Base Map e.g. pubs, petrol stations, farm fields, vineyards etc. So it should be far more than the DCS Base Map. Where OSM is missing stuff that is in the DCS Base Map why should it not be copied? That is a gain for OSM. “The DCS Base Map is out of date”? So is the OSM data! I don’t see that point of this ‘argument’ at all. If something in OSM is ‘out of date’ then correct it. If something is missing from OSM but is in the DCS Base Map then copy it. Those who know it is out of date can correct it, arguing that it should not be added because ‘it may be out of date’ could be applied to all sources other than those sighted in the last day. Should any data that ‘may be out of date’ be rejected? I have found some things in the DCS Base Map to be more upto date than the DCS imagery having to resort to Maxar to confirm the existence of the objects. So the DCS Base Map maybe ‘out of date’ for some things but more ‘upto date’ for other things. Such are the joys of our changing world. “On the ground truth” Some take the view that they have been there and seen X. Ok, the DCS Base Map says Y.. Humm. Where this is some land form or land cover I take it the mapper involved has more expertise than those that contribute to the DCS Base Map to determine that land form or land cover. I would not put myself in that category. As an example the ability to determine an area is an arid wetland, I have no expertise to determined that and would take DCS Base Map as more authoritative than my poor observations. --- Me? I have added libraries (those facilities that lend books) from the DCS Base Map .. using a list from a copyright source to direct me to the area and then searching the DCS Base Map for it. The location and name comes from the DCS Base Map not the copyright source. This is not all the libraries as some are ‘private’ e.g. schools. But it has got at least most of the public ones into OSM. I call that a win for OSM. Mangroves. These are well defined by the DCS Base Map. I have been questioned as to how reliable they are .. well on 5 that I gone to those all appear to be accurate .. and others can be seen on imagery. So I am quite confident that these can be transferred from the DCS Base Map into OSM. And I have copied other stuff, missing in OSM, from the DCS Base Map. There is a lot of it! I plan on continuing to do so. The DCS Base Map is a great resource that we should use. I have even found errors in OSM from the DCS Base Map. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
