Ian, Interested to know how and what tools you use to extract data for this type of analysis.
Li. On 27/05/2013, at 10:00 PM, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Australia licence change redaction recovery.. (Steve Bennett) > 2. Re: Australia licence change redaction recovery.. (Ben Johnson) > 3. Re: Australia licence change redaction recovery.. (Brett Russell) > 4. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 25 (Li Xia) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 22:26:34 +1000 > From: Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> > To: Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> > Cc: OSM - Talk-au <Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australia licence change redaction recovery.. > Message-ID: > <CA+z=q=vxqgp7z9-3bdewsolcdchdclevn6ethwngpu--zdz...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So, my summary would be that we've probably comprehensively remapped he >> motorways and trunk roads across the country. We've got significantly more >> tracks, paths and residential/unclassified roads than we had before. There >> would seem to be artifacts of extensive aerial remapping, with the lower >> percentage overall of named roads, and what I'm thinking could be a >> consequent tendency to underrate what passes for a secondary road in >> Australia. I'd also attribute greater mapping outside of urban areas to the >> more extensive bing imagery coverage, and possibly the focus of the >> redaction process on urban areas. > > > Thanks very much for doing this - I've been quite curious about where > we're up to. I had guessed we were about on par - so this is good > news. I've been doing a fair bit of aerial mapping lately - not sure > whether remapping or not. I tend to be pretty conservative with road > classifications on a first pass. Later, I might look at the area and > upgrade a couple of the roads. > > Steve > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:05:39 +1000 > From: Ben Johnson <tangarar...@gmail.com> > To: Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> > Cc: OSM - Talk-au <Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australia licence change redaction recovery.. > Message-ID: <16f9fd5a-a1bf-47f2-ab39-c5be9cd34...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Ian, > > Thanks very much for doing this exercise. > > I agree with all the sentiments already expressed - it's so encouraging to > see we bounced back so fast, and so strong, and that all our efforts have > made a difference. Everyone in the project should feel very proud of what we > achieved. > > BJ > > > On 25/05/2013, at 9:08 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I crunched some numbers comparing AU planet extracts from today and prior to >> the redaction commencing. Although they were for my personal edification, >> I thought I'd share them. >> >> We have about 70,000 km of additional mapped unclassified and residential >> road now than we did before the redaction process - that is an increase in >> distance of about 27%. In terms of distance of named roads in this >> category, we're about where we were before the redaction in absolute terms. >> >> Trunk and motorways there is no significant variation. The number of >> kilometres of mapped road and named roads in this category is roughly >> unchanged. >> >> In primary, secondary, and tertiary, we've had an increase in mapped >> distance of 35,000km, or around 20%. Although we've seen a significant >> decrease in the number of secondary roads, and marked increase in the mapped >> km of tertiary roads. Our post-redaction remappers have a tendency towards >> tertiary roads, it would seem. Our length of named roads in this category >> is up in actual kilometres, but down on a relative basis. >> >> In paths, tracks, footways and cycleways and service roads our mapped >> distance is also up, We've seen huge increases in mapped tracks - closing >> on double what we had before. >> >> So, my summary would be that we've probably comprehensively remapped he >> motorways and trunk roads across the country. We've got significantly more >> tracks, paths and residential/unclassified roads than we had before. There >> would seem to be artifacts of extensive aerial remapping, with the lower >> percentage overall of named roads, and what I'm thinking could be a >> consequent tendency to underrate what passes for a secondary road in >> Australia. I'd also attribute greater mapping outside of urban areas to the >> more extensive bing imagery coverage, and possibly the focus of the >> redaction process on urban areas. >> >> Of course, this is all quantitative data, not qualitative. Take it for what >> it is. My summary is just a guess, and I can't say with any certainty that >> the increase in distance isn't just fence posts on the Kimberley! >> >> Ian. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:09:43 +1000 > From: Brett Russell <brussell...@live.com.au> > Cc: OSM - Talk-au <Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australia licence change redaction recovery.. > Message-ID: <blu403-eas90ab5db40302a53c3c949daf...@phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Yes thanks to all. Great to see the connecting roads reinstated and the > routing largely back in action. Still a lot of minor roads missing with weird > nodes scattered around but no great problem cleaning up. > > As more a bushwalker I mainly concentrate on tracks and geographical features > but wonderful that the road infrastructure is nearly always there to connect > into. > > Cheers > Brett Russell > PO Box 94 > Launceston Tas. 7250 > Australia > 0419 374 971 > > On 27/05/2013, at 11:07 AM, "Ben Johnson" <tangarar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ian, >> >> Thanks very much for doing this exercise. >> >> I agree with all the sentiments already expressed - it's so encouraging to >> see we bounced back so fast, and so strong, and that all our efforts have >> made a difference. Everyone in the project should feel very proud of what we >> achieved. >> >> BJ >> >> >> On 25/05/2013, at 9:08 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I crunched some numbers comparing AU planet extracts from today and prior >>> to the redaction commencing. Although they were for my personal >>> edification, I thought I'd share them. >>> >>> We have about 70,000 km of additional mapped unclassified and residential >>> road now than we did before the redaction process - that is an increase in >>> distance of about 27%. In terms of distance of named roads in this >>> category, we're about where we were before the redaction in absolute terms. >>> >>> Trunk and motorways there is no significant variation. The number of >>> kilometres of mapped road and named roads in this category is roughly >>> unchanged. >>> >>> In primary, secondary, and tertiary, we've had an increase in mapped >>> distance of 35,000km, or around 20%. Although we've seen a significant >>> decrease in the number of secondary roads, and marked increase in the >>> mapped km of tertiary roads. Our post-redaction remappers have a tendency >>> towards tertiary roads, it would seem. Our length of named roads in this >>> category is up in actual kilometres, but down on a relative basis. >>> >>> In paths, tracks, footways and cycleways and service roads our mapped >>> distance is also up, We've seen huge increases in mapped tracks - closing >>> on double what we had before. >>> >>> So, my summary would be that we've probably comprehensively remapped he >>> motorways and trunk roads across the country. We've got significantly more >>> tracks, paths and residential/unclassified roads than we had before. There >>> would seem to be artifacts of extensive aerial remapping, with the lower >>> percentage overall of named roads, and what I'm thinking could be a >>> consequent tendency to underrate what passes for a secondary road in >>> Australia. I'd also attribute greater mapping outside of urban areas to >>> the more extensive bing imagery coverage, and possibly the focus of the >>> redaction process on urban areas. >>> >>> Of course, this is all quantitative data, not qualitative. Take it for >>> what it is. My summary is just a guess, and I can't say with any certainty >>> that the increase in distance isn't just fence posts on the Kimberley! >>> >>> Ian. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:31:32 +1000 > From: Li Xia <lisxia1...@gmail.com> > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 25 > Message-ID: <d81cad60-516d-414f-9497-e6cb329c2...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Provided that licensing is all good, how can the data be imported into OSM? > What can be done to ensure there's minimal duplicates? > > Li. > > On 26/05/2013, at 10:00 PM, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > >> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to >> talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: data.sa.gov.au (Alex Sims) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 21:35:55 +0930 >> From: Alex Sims <a...@softgrow.com> >> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: Re: [talk-au] data.sa.gov.au >> Message-ID: <51a0a923.8090...@softgrow.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" >> >> I'm just writing an email now to seek a similar agreement for >> sa.data.gov.au as for data.gov.au >> >> Alex >> >> On 25/05/2013 5:23 PM, Paul Norman wrote: >>> >>> The only issue with CC BY is that some data owners believe that >>> attribution "reasonable to the medium" is more than the ODbL >>> guarantees which allows "notices in a location ... where users would >>> be likely to look for it" such as a wiki page linked from /copyright >>> or in the case of produced works, a "notice ... reasonably calculated >>> to make [anyone] aware that Content was obtained from the Database" >>> (The "Database" in that quote would be what was provided under CC BY). >>> >>> Some cities releasing data as CC BY insisted that only mention on any >>> page where the map was viewed was reasonable, which is clearly >>> unreasonable when there can be dozens of sources on one page, or even >>> hundreds. >>> >>> *From:*Ian Sergeant [mailto:inas66+...@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:09 AM >>> *To:* Daniel O'Connor >>> *Cc:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] data.sa.gov.au >>> >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> The first step should be to find out if they are willing to have their >>> data relicenced under our licence? >>> >>> CC-BY data is nice, and means that the data owner is likely only >>> seeking attribution (which we do provide) but my understanding is that >>> it is still insufficient for us to use without further permission from >>> the data owner. Pointers to our attribution page have worked in the >>> past in gaining such permission. >>> >>> Ian. >>> >>> On 24 May 2013 18:58, Daniel O'Connor <daniel.ocon...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:daniel.ocon...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> The SA govt has joined many of the other state/local governments in >>> publishing open data. >>> >>> The current implementation is powered by CKAN, and though I haven't >>> seen it yet, appears to be leveraging openstreetmap / cloudmade in >>> some fashion. >>> >>> Anyway, the majority of the data sets are CC-A licensed, and in either >>> CSV or Shapefile format: >>> >>> Some initial things that might be worth importing/using as a >>> reference/looking into: >>> >>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/major-and-minor-roads >>> >>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/library-locations >>> >>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/parks-and-reserves >>> >>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/sa-playgrounds >>> >>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/stormwater-nodes >>> >>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/surface-water-catchments >>> >>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/suburb-boundaries >>> >>> and of course: >>> >>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/centrelink-office-locations >>> >>> Not sure how much overlap with data.gov.au <http://data.gov.au> data >>> sets (assume some). >>> >>> Anyone want to have a look around and >>> >>> 1) Call out the things you think are missing >>> >>> 2) Call out the things you'd want to have imported or manually >>> transcribed into open street map >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20130525/139116b6/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> >> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 25 >> *************************************** > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 26 > *************************************** _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
