subject:"\[Talk\-ca\] Cleanup"

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-19 Thread Pierre Béland

J'ai ajouté short_name pour le Québec, mais je pense effectivement que c'est 
inutile à comparer avec Ontario. Dans ce cas, le ON fonctionne sans doute à 
cause de state_code=ON.
Et effectivement, lorsque les relations de territoires sont ajoutées et 
fonctionnelles, les is_in et addr:province sont inutiles et Nominatim fourni 
correctement l'info.  


 
Pierre 
 

Le lundi 19 mars 2018 11 h 18 min 23 s HAE, Matthew Darwin 
 a écrit :  
 
  Searching on "110 Laurier Avenue West, on" in Nominatim already works (it 
finds Ottawa City hall) even though the address has no addr:province tag for 
City Halle.  So I don't think this is a good reason to be adding 
addr:province/addr:province:short_name tags. IMO.  Unless there is another use 
case I am missing.  Similarly your example of searching for "Toronto, ON" works 
fine.
 
 I'm guessing this works because the Ontario admin relation has ISO3166-2 tag 
of CA-ON
 
 
 


  On 2018-03-10 04:51 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:
 
   Non, inutile si relations. Dans relation province d'Ontario - ajouter 
short_name='ON'. 
  De cette façon, Recherche Toronto, ON
  devrait fonctionner. A essayer :)
  
   
 Pierre 
   
  
 Le samedi 10 mars 2018 15:39:53 HNE, john whelan  a 
écrit :  
  
  So you're suggesting adding short_name='ON' to ones that have 
addr:province=Ontario
 
  How would that work?
 
 addr:province=Ontario 
  addr:province:short_name=ON ?
 
  Merci John
   
   
 
   ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-19 Thread Matthew Darwin


Pierre,

This is a good idea, and I plan to do it.   My current challenge is to 
know what things people think "need correction".  I'm starting these 
discussions to see if there is any consensus before I go writing 
code.  If you (or anyone else) has ideas, please do post here (or 
email directly).  Obviously I will not re-build tools that already 
exist, but rather focus on Canada-specific issues (eg postal code format).


The checks I made for the City Of Ottawa are here: 
http://matthew.davintech.ca/osm/.  I will be able to re-use some of 
what I have done for Ottawa, but based on the discussion so far on 
talk-CA, the list of things that /might/ need correction is less than 
what the local community in Ottawa might consider as /possible/ issues 
for correction.


My current employer is in Montréal (previous one was in Joliette) and 
I regularly work out of Université du Québec en Outaouais so hopefully 
you'll consider me part of the local community in Quebec, even though 
I live in Ontario.  :-)



On 2018-03-10 03:27 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:


Pour revenir aux suggestions de Matthew, de façon à impliquer / 
motiver les communautés locales, ce serait d'offrir les outils et 
listes d'objets à corriger un peu comme le fait Osmose et autres 
outils de QA.




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-19 Thread Matthew Darwin

Searching on "110 Laurier Avenue West, on" in Nominatim already works 
(it finds Ottawa City hall) even though the address has no 
addr:province tag for City Halle.  So I don't think this is a good 
reason to be adding addr:province/addr:province:short_name tags. IMO.  
Unless there is another use case I am missing.  Similarly your example 
of searching for "Toronto, ON" works fine.


I'm guessing this works because the Ontario admin relation has 
ISO3166-2 tag of CA-ON




On 2018-03-10 04:51 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:

Non, inutile si relations. Dans relation province d'Ontario
- ajouter short_name='ON'.

De cette façon, Recherche Toronto, ON
devrait fonctionner. A essayer :)


Pierre


Le samedi 10 mars 2018 15:39:53 HNE, john whelan 
 a écrit :



So you're suggesting adding short_name='ON' to ones that have 
addr:province=Ontario


How would that work?

addr:province=Ontario
addr:province:short_name=ON ?

Merci John



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-10 Thread Pierre Béland

J'ai fait recherche  «Toronto, On» Cela fonctionne. Peut-etre a cause de 
«state_code=ON»

 
Pierre 
 

Le samedi 10 mars 2018 15:39:53 HNE, john whelan  a 
écrit :  
 
 So you're suggesting adding short_name='ON' to ones that have 
addr:province=Ontario

How would that work?

addr:province=Ontario
addr:province:short_name=ON ?

Merci John

On 10 March 2018 at 15:27, Pierre Béland  wrote:

John, on doit essayer d'être plus intuitif et permettre les deux façons de 
rechercher. Cela peut se faire simplement en ajoutant dans la relation province 
d'Ontario, short_name='ON'. 
Pour revenir aux suggestions de Matthew, de façon à impliquer / motiver les 
communautés locales, ce serait d'offrir les outils et listes d'objets à 
corriger un peu comme le fait Osmose et autres outils de QA.
 
Pierre 
 

Le samedi 10 mars 2018 13:53:35 HNE, john whelan  a 
écrit :  
 
 For Ontario I would suggest following the post office guidelines for province 
and using ON rather than a mixture of ON and Ontario.  That way it makes it 
easier to find an address since you just need to search for ON.  Currently you 
would need to search for both variations.
Cheerio John

On 8 Mar 2018 11:28 pm, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:


So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only addr:province, 
leaving anything that would be generally considered "correct" either spelt out 
in full or using English provincial abbreviation as you might use in a mailing 
address. Also left "Quebec" (no accent).
I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped just at 
tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.

Is there any view on where to go next?

These are the current counts:

69008   Nova Scotia
39668   ON
33280   British Columbia
 7788   Alberta
 6584   AB
 4771   BC
 4520   Québec
 3772   Ontario
 2791   QC
 2140   NB
 1744   SK
 1285   NU
 1066   NL
 1022   Manitoba
  879   New Brunswick
  527   Quebec
  307   PE
  234   NS
  222   MB
  163   Saskatchewan
   23   Nunavut
   14   NT
   11   YT
    9   Yukon
    3   Northwest Territories

__ _
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk-ca


__ _
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap. org/listinfo/talk-ca
  

  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-10 Thread Pierre Béland

Non, inutile si relations. Dans relation province d'Ontario- ajouter 
short_name='ON'.
De cette façon, Recherche Toronto, ON
devrait fonctionner. A essayer :)

 
Pierre 
 

Le samedi 10 mars 2018 15:39:53 HNE, john whelan  a 
écrit :  
 
 So you're suggesting adding short_name='ON' to ones that have 
addr:province=Ontario

How would that work?

addr:province=Ontario
addr:province:short_name=ON ?

Merci John

On 10 March 2018 at 15:27, Pierre Béland  wrote:

John, on doit essayer d'être plus intuitif et permettre les deux façons de 
rechercher. Cela peut se faire simplement en ajoutant dans la relation province 
d'Ontario, short_name='ON'. 
Pour revenir aux suggestions de Matthew, de façon à impliquer / motiver les 
communautés locales, ce serait d'offrir les outils et listes d'objets à 
corriger un peu comme le fait Osmose et autres outils de QA.
 
Pierre 
 

Le samedi 10 mars 2018 13:53:35 HNE, john whelan  a 
écrit :  
 
 For Ontario I would suggest following the post office guidelines for province 
and using ON rather than a mixture of ON and Ontario.  That way it makes it 
easier to find an address since you just need to search for ON.  Currently you 
would need to search for both variations.
Cheerio John

On 8 Mar 2018 11:28 pm, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:


So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only addr:province, 
leaving anything that would be generally considered "correct" either spelt out 
in full or using English provincial abbreviation as you might use in a mailing 
address. Also left "Quebec" (no accent).
I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped just at 
tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.

Is there any view on where to go next?

These are the current counts:

69008   Nova Scotia
39668   ON
33280   British Columbia
 7788   Alberta
 6584   AB
 4771   BC
 4520   Québec
 3772   Ontario
 2791   QC
 2140   NB
 1744   SK
 1285   NU
 1066   NL
 1022   Manitoba
  879   New Brunswick
  527   Quebec
  307   PE
  234   NS
  222   MB
  163   Saskatchewan
   23   Nunavut
   14   NT
   11   YT
    9   Yukon
    3   Northwest Territories

__ _
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk-ca


__ _
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap. org/listinfo/talk-ca
  

  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-10 Thread john whelan

So you're suggesting adding short_name='ON' to ones that have
addr:province=Ontario

How would that work?

addr:province=Ontario
addr:province:short_name=ON ?

Merci John

On 10 March 2018 at 15:27, Pierre Béland  wrote:

> John, on doit essayer d'être plus intuitif et permettre les deux façons de
> rechercher. Cela peut se faire simplement en ajoutant dans la relation
> province d'Ontario, short_name='ON'.
>
> Pour revenir aux suggestions de Matthew, de façon à impliquer / motiver
> les communautés locales, ce serait d'offrir les outils et listes d'objets à
> corriger un peu comme le fait Osmose et autres outils de QA.
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> Le samedi 10 mars 2018 13:53:35 HNE, john whelan 
> a écrit :
>
>
> For Ontario I would suggest following the post office guidelines for
> province and using ON rather than a mixture of ON and Ontario.  That way it
> makes it easier to find an address since you just need to search for ON.
> Currently you would need to search for both variations.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 8 Mar 2018 11:28 pm, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:
>
>
> So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only
> addr:province, leaving anything that would be generally considered
> "correct" either spelt out in full or using English provincial abbreviation
> as you might use in a mailing address. Also left "Quebec" (no accent).
> I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped just
> at tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.
>
> Is there any view on where to go next?
>
> These are the current counts:
>
> 69008   Nova Scotia
> 39668   ON
> 33280   British Columbia
>  7788   Alberta
>  6584   AB
>  4771   BC
>  4520   Québec
>  3772   Ontario
>  2791   QC
>  2140   NB
>  1744   SK
>  1285   NU
>  1066   NL
>  1022   Manitoba
>   879   New Brunswick
>   527   Quebec
>   307   PE
>   234   NS
>   222   MB
>   163   Saskatchewan
>23   Nunavut
>14   NT
>11   YT
> 9   Yukon
> 3   Northwest Territories
>
>
> __ _
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-10 Thread Pierre Béland

John, on doit essayer d'être plus intuitif et permettre les deux façons de 
rechercher. Cela peut se faire simplement en ajoutant dans la relation province 
d'Ontario, short_name='ON'. 
Pour revenir aux suggestions de Matthew, de façon à impliquer / motiver les 
communautés locales, ce serait d'offrir les outils et listes d'objets à 
corriger un peu comme le fait Osmose et autres outils de QA.
 
Pierre 
 

Le samedi 10 mars 2018 13:53:35 HNE, john whelan  a 
écrit :  
 
 For Ontario I would suggest following the post office guidelines for province 
and using ON rather than a mixture of ON and Ontario.  That way it makes it 
easier to find an address since you just need to search for ON.  Currently you 
would need to search for both variations.
Cheerio John

On 8 Mar 2018 11:28 pm, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:


So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only addr:province, 
leaving anything that would be generally considered "correct" either spelt out 
in full or using English provincial abbreviation as you might use in a mailing 
address. Also left "Quebec" (no accent).
I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped just at 
tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.

Is there any view on where to go next?

These are the current counts:

69008   Nova Scotia
39668   ON
33280   British Columbia
 7788   Alberta
 6584   AB
 4771   BC
 4520   Québec
 3772   Ontario
 2791   QC
 2140   NB
 1744   SK
 1285   NU
 1066   NL
 1022   Manitoba
  879   New Brunswick
  527   Quebec
  307   PE
  234   NS
  222   MB
  163   Saskatchewan
   23   Nunavut
   14   NT
   11   YT
    9   Yukon
    3   Northwest Territories

__ _
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-10 Thread john whelan

For Ontario I would suggest following the post office guidelines for
province and using ON rather than a mixture of ON and Ontario.  That way it
makes it easier to find an address since you just need to search for ON.
Currently you would need to search for both variations.

Cheerio John

On 8 Mar 2018 11:28 pm, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:


So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only
addr:province, leaving anything that would be generally considered
"correct" either spelt out in full or using English provincial abbreviation
as you might use in a mailing address. Also left "Quebec" (no accent).
I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped just
at tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.

Is there any view on where to go next?

These are the current counts:

69008   Nova Scotia
39668   ON
33280   British Columbia
 7788   Alberta
 6584   AB
 4771   BC
 4520   Québec
 3772   Ontario
 2791   QC
 2140   NB
 1744   SK
 1285   NU
 1066   NL
 1022   Manitoba
  879   New Brunswick
  527   Quebec
  307   PE
  234   NS
  222   MB
  163   Saskatchewan
   23   Nunavut
   14   NT
   11   YT
9   Yukon
3   Northwest Territories


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-09 Thread Pierre Béland

Matthew, 
Tu fais du travail très louable. En même temps, il est important pour certains 
éléments de connaitre le contexte local. Chaque province a ses règles au niveau 
des noms et il y a du ménage à faire. Par exemple, il y a eu un import massif 
de noms à partir de la base GNS. Ces données ne sont pas toujours de qualité.  
On y retrouve des codes inutiles. Par contre, cela aide à repérer ces éléments 
pour les traiter.  
Peut-être laisser cette responsabilité à chaque province. À noter aussi que les 
collaborateurs québécois ont leurs propres listes de discussion et sont peu 
présents sur cette liste.

 
Pierre 
 

Le jeudi 8 mars 2018 23:27:46 HNE, Matthew Darwin  a 
écrit :  
 
 
So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only 
addr:province, leaving anything that would be generally considered 
"correct" either spelt out in full or using English provincial 
abbreviation as you might use in a mailing address. Also left "Quebec" 
(no accent).
I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped 
just at tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.

Is there any view on where to go next?

These are the current counts:

69008   Nova Scotia
39668   ON
33280   British Columbia
  7788   Alberta
  6584   AB
  4771   BC
  4520   Québec
  3772   Ontario
  2791   QC
  2140   NB
  1744   SK
  1285   NU
  1066   NL
  1022   Manitoba
   879   New Brunswick
   527   Quebec
   307   PE
   234   NS
   222   MB
   163   Saskatchewan
    23   Nunavut
    14   NT
    11   YT
     9   Yukon
     3   Northwest Territories

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-09 Thread James

is addr:province even needed? province boundaries are  pretty well defined
and could be dropped

On Mar 8, 2018 11:28 PM, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:

>
> So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only
> addr:province, leaving anything that would be generally considered
> "correct" either spelt out in full or using English provincial abbreviation
> as you might use in a mailing address. Also left "Quebec" (no accent).
> I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped just
> at tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.
>
> Is there any view on where to go next?
>
> These are the current counts:
>
> 69008   Nova Scotia
> 39668   ON
> 33280   British Columbia
>  7788   Alberta
>  6584   AB
>  4771   BC
>  4520   Québec
>  3772   Ontario
>  2791   QC
>  2140   NB
>  1744   SK
>  1285   NU
>  1066   NL
>  1022   Manitoba
>   879   New Brunswick
>   527   Quebec
>   307   PE
>   234   NS
>   222   MB
>   163   Saskatchewan
>23   Nunavut
>14   NT
>11   YT
> 9   Yukon
> 3   Northwest Territories
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-03-08 Thread Matthew Darwin



So I've tidied up the addr:province/state tags, now using only 
addr:province, leaving anything that would be generally considered 
"correct" either spelt out in full or using English provincial 
abbreviation as you might use in a mailing address. Also left "Quebec" 
(no accent).
I would rather like to clean this up further, however, I have stopped 
just at tidying up things that were mis-spelt or had inconsistent case.


Is there any view on where to go next?

These are the current counts:

69008   Nova Scotia
39668   ON
33280   British Columbia
 7788   Alberta
 6584   AB
 4771   BC
 4520   Québec
 3772   Ontario
 2791   QC
 2140   NB
 1744   SK
 1285   NU
 1066   NL
 1022   Manitoba
  879   New Brunswick
  527   Quebec
  307   PE
  234   NS
  222   MB
  163   Saskatchewan
   23   Nunavut
   14   NT
   11   YT
    9   Yukon
    3   Northwest Territories

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Matthew Darwin



On 2018-02-19 01:49 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

Everything beyond the number and street name requires some abstraction,
and then a decision needs to be made over which authority one trusts.
You're doing great work with your consistency edits, but at some point,
completeness/consistency become very tiresome to reconcile.



Hi Stewart,

I really appreciate all your comments.

At some point I will indeed grow tired of doing edits of this nature.  
But hopefully by then the largest issues are improved. (80/20 rule).  
Additionally I hope to make the techniques I am using to find 
inconsistencies available as some sort of report so others can tackle 
the issues in their area(s) of interest.  The OSM inspector 
(https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/) is great, but it doesn't have 
Canada-specific rules to point out things we could improve.


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Matthew Darwin


Hi Stewart,

Thanks for replying.


Stewart C. Russell wrote:


Alternately my proposal would be to:

   * change addr:state => addr:province

Yes: addr:state is always wrong in Canada, but addr:province might be
problematic for territories and First Nations reservations.


Yep.  Is there an alternate tag though?


   * add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
 don't exist

No. Please don't do that. We have boundaries for that, so all you would
be doing is adding redundant rows to the database.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses says:

Tags such as addr:country=*, addr:city=* and addr:postcode=* are
often redundant as features inside administrative boundaries
(when mapped) "inherit" their attributes as supported by
software such as Nominatim or Photon.


I really have no plans to do a huge edit to add what is essentially 
duplicate information. :-)



   * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
 eg for addr:province in Ontario

Yes, if there's an address that can show the need of having an
addr:province tag. The choice of value would be arbitrary: Ontario is
official, ON is a postal convention.


The wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr says for 
addr:province 
/: The 
//province //of the object. 
For Canada, uppercase two-letter postal abbreviations (//*BC*//, 
//*AB*//, //*ON*//, //*QC*//, etc.) are used. In Russia a synonym 
addr:region is widely used


/So it looks like the English abbreviation should be used, however, in 
practice it is not always.  Here are the top values in Canada:


  66885 
  41104 
  33222 
   7507 
   6089 
   4701 
   4258 
   4257 
   2790 
   2134 
   1742 
   1285 
   1019 
    799 
    778 
    518 
    323 
    278 
    234 
    219 
    219 
    199 
    166 

    163 
    122 
    117 
    113 
 89 
 66 
 62 
 43 
 43 
 37 
 35 
 27 
 27 
 24 
 23 
 21 
 21 
 17 
 14 
 14 
 13 v="Colombie-Britannique"/>

 12 
 11 


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Stewart C. Russell

Hi Matthew -

> If we want to be able generate mailing addresses from OSM (is that a
> valid use case?), then whatever the city address Canada Post thinks we
> are in needs to be tagged in some fashion.

It's *a* valid use case. But the only way to make OSM addresses
consistent with Canada Post addresses is to derive it from Canada Post's
Postal Code(OM) Address Data, which CP keeps adamantly closed. So we
can't have it in OSM.

> … "The name of the city as given in *postal addresses* of the
> building/area."   /(emphasis added)

That piece of your quotation reads like it was added later, and is a
generalization. In some places, the postal town in the town in which the
main sorting takes place. It can be some distance from the delivery
location, and in the case of islands, not always on the same piece of
land. So postal addresses exist for different purposes than geographic
addresses.

Everything beyond the number and street name requires some abstraction,
and then a decision needs to be made over which authority one trusts.
You're doing great work with your consistency edits, but at some point,
completeness/consistency become very tiresome to reconcile.

cheers,
 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Stewart C. Russell

Hi matthew -

> I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out there. 
> If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and addr:country tags
> in Canada, please speak up.

Speaking up here …

> Alternately my proposal would be to:
> 
>   * change addr:state => addr:province

Yes: addr:state is always wrong in Canada, but addr:province might be
problematic for territories and First Nations reservations.

>   * add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
> don't exist

No. Please don't do that. We have boundaries for that, so all you would
be doing is adding redundant rows to the database.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses says:

Tags such as addr:country=*, addr:city=* and addr:postcode=* are
often redundant as features inside administrative boundaries
(when mapped) "inherit" their attributes as supported by
software such as Nominatim or Photon.

The size of edit would be an essentially mechanical one, and it would be
up to whoever did it to verify that they were adding correct data. If it
comes down to pulling in the name from the
boundary=administrative;admin_level=4 that contains the point, what is
gained from doing this?

>   * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields. 
> eg for addr:province in Ontario

Yes, if there's an address that can show the need of having an
addr:province tag. The choice of value would be arbitrary: Ontario is
official, ON is a postal convention.

> If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why
> having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing.

An address is defined in many ways: attached to a building way, an
explicit address node, interpolated from nearby addr:interpolation ways,
and possibly others. Should all of these have addr:province &
addr:country? As there are no doubt streets that cross provincial and
even country boundaries, any automated tagging process needs care and
oversight.

cheers,
 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Stewart C. Russell

Hi Clifford -

> Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
> addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
> outside of the city limits.

There isn't the same hard link between cities and mailing addresses — at
least in Ontario. I live inside the Toronto boundary, and the city
addresses my tax bills to "my address, Toronto". Canada Post says my
address is "my address, Scarborough". (FWIW, Nominatim says I live in
"The Golden Mile, Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, M1K 5H3, Canada". Which
just goes to show that we really need a free source of postal codes in
this country.)

It looks like I live outside the area that the Geographical Names Board
of Canada considers to be Toronto, though:
http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/FEUZB . Looks like
they rendered their official decision just about the time of
Amalgamation - roughly 20 years ago - so they need to look at it again.

"It's complicated" is a fair summary.

 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Clifford Snow

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hi Clifford,
>
> (It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).
>
> Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me to
> be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, along
> the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing address
> cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of
> the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post address
> cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city
> is going to be required, at least in some cases.
>
> Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?  US/Canada
> probably have more similarities than differences, so your input is very
> welcome.
>
I never include addr:province/state or addr:country when adding an address.
If I see one I leave it there since it isn't harming anything. I did just
go look at the last business [1] I added in Burnaby, BC. Looks like I
didn't add a province but did add the city.  I just checked in iD - it
knows that I'm editing in Canada so it has a province field. Very good iD!

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4933408221
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Matthew Darwin


Hi John,

If we want to be able generate mailing addresses from OSM (is that a 
valid use case?), then whatever the city address Canada Post thinks we 
are in needs to be tagged in some fashion.   Google maps and Bing maps 
both think I'm in "Kanata".  OSM thinks I'm in "Kanata North". Both 
are correct, in different ways.


If I we want to do reverse geo coding using OSM data, then the mailing 
address should be represented in some fashion because that's what 
people expect to see.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr says about addr:city: 
/May not be required if boundary=administrative 
 is 
used correctly. May or may not be a clone of is_in:city 
=* (in some places 
the city in the address corresponds to the post office that serves the 
area rather than the actual city, if any, in which the building is 
located)! The name of the city as given in *postal addresses* of the 
building/area. /(emphasis added)



BTW, this is one of the reasons I started all these discussions about  
aligning Canada OSM data... I was trying to use OSM to build a map for 
a community group and rather than just doing post-cleanup work on the 
map data in my own private copy, I thought it might be better to see 
what data we could align and make useful for everyone.  I'll only take 
it as far as consensus is achieved.



On 2018-02-19 11:25 AM, john whelan wrote:
So what we are saying is the city field should be filled in not with 
the physical city but with Canada Posts thoughts of the day?


Orleans is different.  It never was a municipality.

Cheerio John

On 19 February 2018 at 11:17, Matthew Darwin > wrote:


Hi John,

I live in Kanata.  If I type my "  Ottawa" into
the Canada Post lookup tool
(https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en
),
it helpfully corrects me to "Kanata".   Same for old "City of
Nepean" addresses.   Try "1000 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON"
(Canadian Tire Center).

As far as I know, within the City of Ottawa, everyone's postal
address uses the pre-amalgamted city names while the city hasn't
yet finished de-duplicating street names.   So addr:city should
probably be filled in accordingly.


On 2018-02-19 11:07 AM, john whelan wrote:

I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is
the only location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is
located within Ottawa. So how do you tag it?  It is within the
City of Ottawa these days.

Thanks John

On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin
mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:

Hi Clifford,

(It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).

Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city
appears to me to be more complex than the situation with
addr:province/addr:country, along the lines of what you are
mentioning. My personal home mailing address cannot be
resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match
any of the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but
the official post address cannot be resolved from the
boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city is going to
be required, at least in some cases.

Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or
addr:country? US/Canada probably have more similarities
than differences, so your input is very welcome.







___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread john whelan

So what we are saying is the city field should be filled in not with the
physical city but with Canada Posts thoughts of the day?

Orleans is different.  It never was a municipality.

Cheerio John

On 19 February 2018 at 11:17, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I live in Kanata.  If I type my "  Ottawa" into the Canada
> Post lookup tool (https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/
> fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en), it helpfully corrects me to "Kanata".   Same for old
> "City of Nepean" addresses.   Try "1000 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON"
> (Canadian Tire Center).
>
> As far as I know, within the City of Ottawa, everyone's postal address
> uses the pre-amalgamted city names while the city hasn't yet finished
> de-duplicating street names.   So addr:city should probably be filled in
> accordingly.
>
>
> On 2018-02-19 11:07 AM, john whelan wrote:
>
> I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is the only
> location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is located within Ottawa.
> So how do you tag it?  It is within the City of Ottawa these days.
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin  wrote:
>
>> Hi Clifford,
>>
>> (It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).
>>
>> Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me to
>> be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, along
>> the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing address
>> cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of
>> the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post address
>> cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city
>> is going to be required, at least in some cases.
>>
>> Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?
>> US/Canada probably have more similarities than differences, so your input
>> is very welcome.
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Matthew Darwin


Hi John,

I live in Kanata.  If I type my "  Ottawa" into the 
Canada Post lookup tool 
(https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en), 
it helpfully corrects me to "Kanata".   Same for old "City of Nepean" 
addresses.   Try "1000 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON" (Canadian Tire 
Center).


As far as I know, within the City of Ottawa, everyone's postal address 
uses the pre-amalgamted city names while the city hasn't yet finished 
de-duplicating street names.   So addr:city should probably be filled 
in accordingly.



On 2018-02-19 11:07 AM, john whelan wrote:
I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is the 
only location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is located 
within Ottawa.  So how do you tag it?  It is within the City of 
Ottawa these days.


Thanks John

On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin > wrote:


Hi Clifford,

(It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).

Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears
to me to be more complex than the situation with
addr:province/addr:country, along the lines of what you are
mentioning. My personal home mailing address cannot be resolved
in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of the
boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post
address cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a
feeling that addr:city is going to be required, at least in some
cases.

Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?
US/Canada probably have more similarities than differences, so
your input is very welcome.




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread john whelan

I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is the only
location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is located within Ottawa.
So how do you tag it?  It is within the City of Ottawa these days.

Thanks John

On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hi Clifford,
>
> (It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).
>
> Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me to
> be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, along
> the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing address
> cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of
> the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post address
> cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city
> is going to be required, at least in some cases.
>
> Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?  US/Canada
> probably have more similarities than differences, so your input is very
> welcome.
>
>
> On 2018-02-19 10:36 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> Matthew,
> Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
> addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
> outside of the city limits. While addr:city isn't needed inside of city
> boundaries since it can be obtained from their spatial location, does make
> it much easier to full addresses from OSM. I would recommend not removing
> addr:city.
>
> My perspective is from the states where I'm familiar with how the US
> Postal service operates. If this isn't true in Canada - please ignore.
>
> Clifford
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Darwin 
> wrote:
>
>> I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out there.
>> If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and addr:country tags in
>> Canada, please speak up.  I don't like making big changes with only 1
>> comment.  (If you like, feel free to reply privately to me avoid bombarding
>> the list with "me too" and I will summarize the replies on the list).
>> Prior to starting this discussion, I too have been removing these tags when
>> I come across them (a few places in London, ON had country=US???)
>>
>> Alternately my proposal would be to:
>>
>>- change addr:state => addr:province
>>- add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
>>don't exist
>>- an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
>>eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario, ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or 
>> the
>>several other variations that exist today.  ("ON" is most popular, 
>> followed
>>by "Ontario")
>>
>> If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why
>> having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing.  As you may
>> have noticed based on my posts over the last few weeks that I like to have
>> things (more) consistent, unless there is a (good) reason not to be
>> consistent.
>>
>>
>> On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
>>
>> I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've heard
>> the same argument that they're redundant.
>>
>> I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, addresses,
>> etc. Kudos!
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it
>>> was suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the
>>> appropriate boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will
>>> endeavour to investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not
>>> always align in Canada (there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some
>>> type and there are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much
>>> more long term effort.
>>>
>>> However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so removing
>>> the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a more
>>> reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)
>>>
>>> Tags, by number of occurrences:
>>>
>>>  167902 addr:country
>>>
>>>   33252 addr:state
>>>
>>>  179741 addr:province
>>>
>>> 2950115 addr:city
>>>
>>> 2942159 addr:street
>>>
>>> 2934341 addr:housenumber
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Matthew Darwin


Hi Clifford,

(It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).

Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me 
to be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, 
along the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing 
address cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not 
match any of the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the 
official post address cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I 
have a feeling that addr:city is going to be required, at least in 
some cases.


Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?  
US/Canada probably have more similarities than differences, so your 
input is very welcome.



On 2018-02-19 10:36 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:

Matthew,
Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to 
include addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could 
easily be outside of the city limits. While addr:city isn't needed 
inside of city boundaries since it can be obtained from their 
spatial location, does make it much easier to full addresses from 
OSM. I would recommend not removing addr:city.


My perspective is from the states where I'm familiar with how the US 
Postal service operates. If this isn't true in Canada - please ignore.


Clifford

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Darwin > wrote:


I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out
there.  If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and
addr:country tags in Canada, please speak up.  I don't like
making big changes with only 1 comment.  (If you like, feel free
to reply privately to me avoid bombarding the list with "me too"
and I will summarize the replies on the list).  Prior to
starting this discussion, I too have been removing these tags
when I come across them (a few places in London, ON had
country=US???)

Alternately my proposal would be to:

  * change addr:state => addr:province
  * add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where
they don't exist
  * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those
fields.  eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario,
ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or the several other variations that
exist today.  ("ON" is most popular, followed by "Ontario")

If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to
hear why having the tags in some places but not others is a good
thing.  As you may have noticed based on my posts over the last
few weeks that I like to have things (more) consistent, unless
there is a (good) reason not to be consistent.


On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:

I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes,
I've heard the same argument that they're redundant.

I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers,
addresses, etc. Kudos!

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin
mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:

Hi all,

During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in
Canada, it was suggested that the addr:city could be
removed entirely if the appropriate boundaries are
defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will endeavour to
investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not
always align in Canada (there are ~11300 administrative
boundaries of some type and there are ~7000 unique
addr:city tags)... so this will be a much more long term
effort.

However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined,
so removing the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state
tags might be a more reasonable at this time. 
(addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)

Tags, by number of occurrences:

 167902 addr:country

  33252 addr:state

 179741 addr:province

2950115 addr:city

2942159 addr:street

2934341 addr:housenumber





___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca





--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Clifford Snow

Matthew,
Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
outside of the city limits. While addr:city isn't needed inside of city
boundaries since it can be obtained from their spatial location, does make
it much easier to full addresses from OSM. I would recommend not removing
addr:city.

My perspective is from the states where I'm familiar with how the US Postal
service operates. If this isn't true in Canada - please ignore.

Clifford

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out there.
> If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and addr:country tags in
> Canada, please speak up.  I don't like making big changes with only 1
> comment.  (If you like, feel free to reply privately to me avoid bombarding
> the list with "me too" and I will summarize the replies on the list).
> Prior to starting this discussion, I too have been removing these tags when
> I come across them (a few places in London, ON had country=US???)
>
> Alternately my proposal would be to:
>
>- change addr:state => addr:province
>- add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
>don't exist
>- an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
>eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario, ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or the
>several other variations that exist today.  ("ON" is most popular, followed
>by "Ontario")
>
> If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why
> having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing.  As you may
> have noticed based on my posts over the last few weeks that I like to have
> things (more) consistent, unless there is a (good) reason not to be
> consistent.
>
>
> On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
>
> I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've heard
> the same argument that they're redundant.
>
> I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, addresses,
> etc. Kudos!
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it was
>> suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the appropriate
>> boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will endeavour to
>> investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not always align in
>> Canada (there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some type and there
>> are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much more long term
>> effort.
>>
>> However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so removing
>> the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a more
>> reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)
>>
>> Tags, by number of occurrences:
>>
>>  167902 addr:country
>>
>>   33252 addr:state
>>
>>  179741 addr:province
>>
>> 2950115 addr:city
>>
>> 2942159 addr:street
>>
>> 2934341 addr:housenumber
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-19 Thread Matthew Darwin

I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out 
there.  If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and 
addr:country tags in Canada, please speak up.  I don't like making big 
changes with only 1 comment.  (If you like, feel free to reply 
privately to me avoid bombarding the list with "me too" and I will 
summarize the replies on the list).  Prior to starting this 
discussion, I too have been removing these tags when I come across 
them (a few places in London, ON had country=US???)


Alternately my proposal would be to:

 * change addr:state => addr:province
 * add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
   don't exist
 * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those
   fields.  eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario,
   ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or the several other variations that exist
   today.  ("ON" is most popular, followed by "Ontario")

If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why 
having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing. As you 
may have noticed based on my posts over the last few weeks that I like 
to have things (more) consistent, unless there is a (good) reason not 
to be consistent.



On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've 
heard the same argument that they're redundant.


I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, 
addresses, etc. Kudos!


On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin > wrote:


Hi all,

During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in
Canada, it was suggested that the addr:city could be removed
entirely if the appropriate boundaries are defined.   I would
hazard to guess (and will endeavour to investigate) that the
addr:city and the boundaries do not always align in Canada
(there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some type and
there are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much
more long term effort.

However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so
removing the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags
might be a more reasonable at this time. (addr:country is used
~94% less than addr:street)

Tags, by number of occurrences:

 167902 addr:country

  33252 addr:state

 179741 addr:province

2950115 addr:city

2942159 addr:street

2934341 addr:housenumber




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-16 Thread Alan Richards

I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've heard
the same argument that they're redundant.

I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, addresses,
etc. Kudos!

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it was
> suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the appropriate
> boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will endeavour to
> investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not always align in
> Canada (there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some type and there
> are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much more long term
> effort.
>
> However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so removing
> the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a more
> reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)
>
> Tags, by number of occurrences:
>
>  167902 addr:country
>
>   33252 addr:state
>
>  179741 addr:province
>
> 2950115 addr:city
>
> 2942159 addr:street
>
> 2934341 addr:housenumber
>
>
> --
> Matthew Darwinmatthew@mdarwin.cahttp://www.mdarwin.ca
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

2018-02-16 Thread Matthew Darwin


Hi all,

During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it 
was suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the 
appropriate boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and 
will endeavour to investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries 
do not always align in Canada (there are ~11300 administrative 
boundaries of some type and there are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... 
so this will be a much more long term effort.


However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so 
removing the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a 
more reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than 
addr:street)


Tags, by number of occurrences:

 167902 addr:country

  33252 addr:state

 179741 addr:province

2950115 addr:city

2942159 addr:street

2934341 addr:housenumber


--
Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] cleanup

2012-05-28 Thread alouette955


Bonjour,

Y a-t-il eu du nouveau à ce sujet depuis cette avril?

Pour ma part, le rafraichissement de OpenCycleMap.org m'est indispensable 
pour connaitre l'état des pistes cyclables ainsi que le travail des autres 
contributeurs mais il semble suspendu depuis un très long moment. Certaines 
de mes modifications de mi-avril n'apparaissent pas encore alors que celles 
d'un autre contributeur datant du 4 mai apparaissent.


Y aurait-il un moratoire dont je n'ai pas entendu parler? Andy Allan de qui 
dépend OpenCycleMap.org ne semble pas très présent ces temps-ci sur son 
blog.


Merci

Claude

-Message d'origine- 
From: Richard Weait

Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:20 AM
To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] cleanup

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Allison
 wrote:

So the redaction has began.


Not as far as I can tell.  But it will start without notice, with the
small area tests.
Latest update.
http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/04/05/license-change-update-getting-it-right/


Any idea how long it will take?


Not really.  Everything we clean in advance, makes the process faster.
Every account that agrees before the redaction starts, makes the
process faster.

After running some small tests, and checking, then some larger tests,
it may be possible to predict.  So once the process has been running
for a few days, the admins may take a guess at a completion date.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] cleanup

2012-04-09 Thread Richard Weait

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Allison
 wrote:
> So the redaction has began.

Not as far as I can tell.  But it will start without notice, with the
small area tests.
Latest update.
http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/04/05/license-change-update-getting-it-right/

> Any idea how long it will take?

Not really.  Everything we clean in advance, makes the process faster.
 Every account that agrees before the redaction starts, makes the
process faster.

After running some small tests, and checking, then some larger tests,
it may be possible to predict.  So once the process has been running
for a few days, the admins may take a guess at a completion date.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] cleanup

2012-04-09 Thread Andrew Allison

So the redaction has began.

Any idea how long it will take?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-03-28 Thread Matthew Buchanan

I was fixing an area that I had mapped before just east of Hope BC at the
Othello/Quintette tunnels. I had tagged what parts of the abandoned
railway, now a trail are tunnel or bridge. This was sometime last fall.
Yesterday I noticed most had been removed so I added it back.

Today the trails are okay, but part of the Coquihalla highway is gone. Is
this due to the automated cleanup that is happening? Or is that finished
with? I want to know if I should not be doing any edits for a while.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=49.378433&lon=-121.341271&zoom=18

-- Matthew Buchanan
-- Kamloops, BC

On 6 March 2012 14:58, Paul Norman  wrote:

> > From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup
> >
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-03-06 Thread Paul Norman

> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup
> 
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:
> >> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 5:42 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Richard Weait 
> >> wrote:
> >> >> I suggest that we can have more tainted data removed
> >> >> automatically,
> >>
> >> > It appears that the bot is deleting ways more extensive than those
> >> proposed.
> >>
> >> Ah, that's my fault.  I miss-stated the scope when I requested the
> >> removal.  The result will be the equivalent of the automated cleanup
> >> after the license change, for those three accounts.  I'm inclined to
> >> have it continue; this is making remapping faster / easier.
> >> Apologies for my confusing the issue.
> >>
> >> Last time, some nodes were cleaned up after the ways were removed.  I
> >> expect this will be similar.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Richard
> >
> > I'm not sure what the best way to proceed.
> 
> I think that it is.  We're just a few weeks ahead of everybody else.

I see five issues with it.

1. The changesets to remove the nodes will be much larger than the
changesets so far which have not dealt with nodes. Backing out is quicker
than proceeding;

2. The removal makes remapping much more difficult. Since the changesets I
have stopped all remapping on the island since I no longer known what needs
to be added to replace missing data or data that will be removed. Previously
I was working on the island because it took much less time per square km and
much less time per object to remap. It's much slower now, so I've given up
on cleaning up the island.

3. Concern was expressed in the rebuild@ conference call about the method of
removing areas of data and not replacing them. I'm not sure I share this
concern, but I don't know if there's a consensus on the matter.

4. Concerns over deficiencies in the algorithm, which I'll get into below.

5. People are still discussing refinements to the algorithm on rebuild@. For
example,
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rebuild/2012-March/99.html is
discussing a less conservative approach to some tag changes.

6. Not all of the objects removed needed to be removed. I was adding
odbl=clean as appropriate. I can't do this anymore.

> > Proceeding with the node removals
> > will still leave stray nodes as I believe there are false negatives in
> > the license change algorithms used.
> 
> Do you have examples so that the algorithm and process can be checked?
> 
> > When I suggested a second run targeting items where all versions were
> > created by one of the accounts it was because the first run had
> > essentially missed some objects.
> 
> Did you present examples to check?  Again, if the process or algorithm
> can be improved, perhaps we should woork towards that?

I have two separate concerns, false negatives and stray nodes.

I see two ways for false negatives to arise. The first is when a way and the
nodes that form it is created by a decliner then another mapper drags or
rotates the way to correct an offset. This can be done without retracing the
way, particularly if it's the decliner traced from a source with a known
consistent offset. The second way for a false negative to arrive is when an
object from a decliner (most likely a POI node) is retagged by a bot like
xybot. Xybot runs automatically and I don't see how it can create remove old
IP and create new IP by an automated retagging.

The second concern is stray nodes. These could occur through false
negatives, but with the algorithm used they can occur even without false
negatives.

Suppose a decliner creates a tagged way and an acceptor later adds new nodes
to refine the geometry untagged nodes with untagged nodes, no tag changes to
the object, and no moves to existing nodes. The way is then removed, but the
nodes created by the acceptor remain. This is fine from a legal standpoint,
but it leaves these nodes as stray nodes unless they are the child of some
other object.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-03-06 Thread Richard Weait

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 5:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Richard Weait 
>> wrote:
>> >> I suggest that we can have more tainted data removed automatically,
>>
>> > It appears that the bot is deleting ways more extensive than those
>> proposed.
>>
>> Ah, that's my fault.  I miss-stated the scope when I requested the
>> removal.  The result will be the equivalent of the automated cleanup
>> after the license change, for those three accounts.  I'm inclined to
>> have it continue; this is making remapping faster / easier.  Apologies
>> for my confusing the issue.
>>
>> Last time, some nodes were cleaned up after the ways were removed.  I
>> expect this will be similar.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Richard
>
> I'm not sure what the best way to proceed.

I think that it is.  We're just a few weeks ahead of everybody else.

> Proceeding with the node removals
> will still leave stray nodes as I believe there are false negatives in the
> license change algorithms used.

Do you have examples so that the algorithm and process can be checked?

> When I suggested a second run targeting
> items where all versions were created by one of the accounts it was because
> the first run had essentially missed some objects.

Did you present examples to check?  Again, if the process or algorithm
can be improved, perhaps we should woork towards that?

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-03-02 Thread Paul Norman

> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 5:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup
> 
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Richard Weait 
> wrote:
> >> I suggest that we can have more tainted data removed automatically,
> 
> > It appears that the bot is deleting ways more extensive than those
> proposed.
> 
> Ah, that's my fault.  I miss-stated the scope when I requested the
> removal.  The result will be the equivalent of the automated cleanup
> after the license change, for those three accounts.  I'm inclined to
> have it continue; this is making remapping faster / easier.  Apologies
> for my confusing the issue.
> 
> Last time, some nodes were cleaned up after the ways were removed.  I
> expect this will be similar.
> 
> Best regards,
> Richard

I'm not sure what the best way to proceed. Proceeding with the node removals
will still leave stray nodes as I believe there are false negatives in the
license change algorithms used. When I suggested a second run targeting
items where all versions were created by one of the accounts it was because
the first run had essentially missed some objects.

What might be best is reverting the deletion of objects that do not meet the
proposed critera, so that we can then carry on normal remapping.
Alternately, reverting the deletion of objects that are not imports or
imports of highway=secondary or above which would then allow manual
remapping to ensure continuity of the major roads network.

Proceeding with an automated node removal and including nodes that are
members of other objects could leave invalid geometries behind. I know I had
to manually check for these when removing imports prior to remapping. The
same applies to way removal and including ways that are members of
relations.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-03-02 Thread Richard Weait

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
>> I suggest that we can have more tainted data removed automatically,

> It appears that the bot is deleting ways more extensive than those proposed.

Ah, that's my fault.  I miss-stated the scope when I requested the
removal.  The result will be the equivalent of the automated cleanup
after the license change, for those three accounts.  I'm inclined to
have it continue; this is making remapping faster / easier.  Apologies
for my confusing the issue.

Last time, some nodes were cleaned up after the ways were removed.  I
expect this will be similar.

Best regards,
Richard

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-03-02 Thread Paul Norman

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:56 PM
> To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup
> 
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Richard Weait 
> wrote:
> >> The first pass on the clean up started a few hours ago.
> >
> > It's complete now.
> 
> The summary of the bulk removal is as follows:
> 
> About 66% of the nodes, 70% of the highways, and 80% of the other ways
> created by these accounts were removed.  That's roughly 45% of all
> tainted nodes, 17% of all tainted highways and 71% of all other tainted
> ways.
> 
> Since the removal, a number of undecided account have been contacted and
> have agreed to the new terms.  14 of the top 22 non-agreed accounts have
> now agreed.  That is great news.
> 
> I suggest that we can have more tainted data removed automatically, so
> that we can concentrate our remapping efforts on areas that can benefit
> from human intervention.  I'd like to ask DWG to remove:
> 
> Objects edited only by those two non-agreed accounts, regardless of the
> current version number.  (Provided these  objects are not
> natural=coastline objects.)  That will remove a number of objects that
> were imported by one of these accounts and then modified by the other.
> 
> That should clear up another nice chunk of data.
> 
> I'd also like to request that DWG remove or revert all of the edits by
> another account that has not agreed.  This one has made unusual edits,
> and the user disappeared when questioned about the source of the
> information.
> 
> This is a cleanup job that nobody has tackled so far.  We might as well
> do it now.  Removing this data will clear another 18% of tainted nodes,
> 23% of tainted highways and 19% of other tainted ways.
> 
> Thoughts?

It appears that the bot is deleting ways more extensive than those proposed.
See for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26944782/history,
which did not meet the criteria proposed. Also, it seems to of deleted the
ways and left untagged nodes behind.

I can run a stray node cleanup later, but can we review the logic used to
remove these objects before any more are done?


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-03-01 Thread Tyler Gunn

> Objects edited only by those two non-agreed accounts, regardless of
> the current version number.  (Provided these  objects are not
> natural=coastline objects.)  That will remove a number of objects that
> were imported by one of these accounts and then modified by the other.
> That should clear up another nice chunk of data.
> I'd also like to request that DWG remove or revert all of the edits by
> another account that has not agreed.  This one has made unusual edits,
> and the user disappeared when questioned about the source of the
> information.
> This is a cleanup job that nobody has tackled so far.  We might as
> well do it now.  Removing this data will clear another 18% of tainted
> nodes, 23% of tainted highways and 19% of other tainted ways.
> Thoughts?

I'm all for removing tainted data automatically.  It ends up being a
pain and can often hamper remapping efforts.

I've been remapping some areas of Winnipeg from a non-agree who
imported from a questionable source.  Still plenty of work to do
though.

Tyler

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-02-29 Thread Richard Weait

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
>> The first pass on the clean up started a few hours ago.
>
> It's complete now.

The summary of the bulk removal is as follows:

About 66% of the nodes, 70% of the highways, and 80% of the other ways
created by these accounts were removed.  That's roughly 45% of all
tainted nodes, 17% of all tainted highways and 71% of all other
tainted ways.

Since the removal, a number of undecided account have been contacted
and have agreed to the new terms.  14 of the top 22 non-agreed
accounts have now agreed.  That is great news.

I suggest that we can have more tainted data removed automatically, so
that we can concentrate our remapping efforts on areas that can
benefit from human intervention.  I'd like to ask DWG to remove:

Objects edited only by those two non-agreed accounts, regardless of
the current version number.  (Provided these  objects are not
natural=coastline objects.)  That will remove a number of objects that
were imported by one of these accounts and then modified by the other.

That should clear up another nice chunk of data.

I'd also like to request that DWG remove or revert all of the edits by
another account that has not agreed.  This one has made unusual edits,
and the user disappeared when questioned about the source of the
information.

This is a cleanup job that nobody has tackled so far.  We might as
well do it now.  Removing this data will clear another 18% of tainted
nodes, 23% of tainted highways and 19% of other tainted ways.

Thoughts?

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-02-01 Thread Richard Weait

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> The first pass on the clean up started a few hours ago.

It's complete now.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-30 Thread Richard Weait

The first pass on the clean up started a few hours ago.  So far, over
20k ways have been removed.  The nodes from those ways are left behind
for now, they'll be cleaned up shortly, with the stand-alone nodes
(like imported communication towers).

So If you go editing and see a bunch of abandoned nodes.  That's
what's going on.  You can watch the progress here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck_fixbot/edits

This first  pass will remove about 50k ways.  Then the 700k-or so
nodes from the ways (and the stand alone nodes) after that.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-26 Thread Richard Weait

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> Also, what do you mean by known-bad accounts?

low-quality edits by accounts that aren't going to agree.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-26 Thread Paul Norman

> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:24 AM
> To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> Subject: [Talk-ca] Cleanup
> 
> Most of the Canadian data that needs cleaning is very low impact.
> 
> Two of the high-volume decline accounts are primarily imports that have
> not been subsequently edited.  That means the effected data can easily
> be re-imported for a net-zero change.
> 
> I recommend that we remove that data now, without delay.  That will
> simplify current cleanup activities by:
> - removing trivial doomed data
> - making interesting data cleaning opportunities easier to see
> 
> I'd like to request that the data working group purge that data for us.
> What do you think about requesting the removal of objects that
> are:
> 
> - created by the known-bad accounts
> - version 1 (that is, they have not been modified by another mapper)
> - not ways tagged natural=coastline
> 
> That will reduce the cleanup in Canada by about an order of magnitude
> with zero negative effect.
> 
> Thoughts?  Request this of DWG, or no?
> 

Not yet. I'm working on cleaning up some bad imports from accounts that have
not agreed to the CTs and would like to finish these first.

Also, what do you mean by known-bad accounts? 


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-26 Thread Richard Weait

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Andrew Allison
 wrote:

> I'm currently removing / replacing the data in the London area.

I just had a look and London looks much better than last time I looked
at it.  Nice job!

> How many mappers are there out there, that are recreating the currently
> tainted map data?

We see a few in this thread.  In Canada, we're few and far between in
general.  The same will be true for remappers.  We're determined too
though.  :-)

> Right now I'm using the OSM inspector to flag what I have to replace.
> If / Once the data is purged I would not know what needs to be done.

Since we're talking about two accounts and v1 data, have a look in
JOSM and use select-all, then look at the list of authors.  If you see
those two accounts in that list; that's data potentially effected.  in
London, there will likely be few objects.

> As a side note, I was using the JOSM plugin to flag the tainted data.
> But using the OSM inspector seems to flag a lot more data. Personally I
> would like to know, which tool is a better indicator of what is going to
> be removed.

So, the inspector and the josm plugin use the same data.  They should
be equally-up-to-date.  Make sure you have a recent josm and
licensedetails plugin.  There was a bug fix a week or two ago to help
with data by anonymous accounts.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-26 Thread Andrew Allison

On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 13:23 -0500, Richard Weait wrote:
> Most of the Canadian data that needs cleaning is very low impact.
> 
> Two of the high-volume decline accounts are primarily imports that
> have not been subsequently edited.  That means the effected data can
> easily be re-imported for a net-zero change.
> 
> I recommend that we remove that data now, without delay.  That will
> simplify current cleanup activities by:
> - removing trivial doomed data
> - making interesting data cleaning opportunities easier to see
> 
> I'd like to request that the data working group purge that data for
> us.  What do you think about requesting the removal of objects that
> are:
> 
> - created by the known-bad accounts
> - version 1 (that is, they have not been modified by another mapper)
> - not ways tagged natural=coastline
> 
> That will reduce the cleanup in Canada by about an order of magnitude
> with zero negative effect.
> 
> Thoughts?  Request this of DWG, or no?
> 
I'm currently removing / replacing the data in the London area.

How many mappers are there out there, that are recreating the currently
tainted map data?

Right now I'm using the OSM inspector to flag what I have to replace.
If / Once the data is purged I would not know what needs to be done.

As a side note, I was using the JOSM plugin to flag the tainted data.
But using the OSM inspector seems to flag a lot more data. Personally I
would like to know, which tool is a better indicator of what is going to
be removed.

So, to sum it up, I would like to keep the tainted data around for a
while just so I know what needs to be done.

Given that I should be finished cleaning up the London area probably
next week I don't think I would be affected by a earlier purge.

Andrew
aka Purple Mustang

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-26 Thread Richard Weait

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Gordon Dewis  wrote:
> Could the impacted objects have an attributed added to them so we can easily
> review the impact before they're deleted? Could help us plan replacement
> strategies.

I suppose you could whip up a viewer like that, but editing all of
those objects with something like "doomed=yes" in the real db seems
like a bad idea.  :-)

For a quick and dirty view, have a look at the large import areas in
the north of Vancouver Island and of Newfoundland

Vancouver Island
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-126.10894&lat=49.70220&zoom=7&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created

Newfoundland
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-54.02215&lat=48.15776&zoom=7&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created

Also, have a look at the areas that you map.  View a large area in
JOSM and use the licensedetails plugin.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-26 Thread Gordon Dewis

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:

> Most of the Canadian data that needs cleaning is very low impact.
>
> Two of the high-volume decline accounts are primarily imports that
> have not been subsequently edited.  That means the effected data can
> easily be re-imported for a net-zero change.
>
> I recommend that we remove that data now, without delay.  That will
> simplify current cleanup activities by:
> - removing trivial doomed data
> - making interesting data cleaning opportunities easier to see
>
> I'd like to request that the data working group purge that data for
> us.  What do you think about requesting the removal of objects that
> are:
>
> - created by the known-bad accounts
> - version 1 (that is, they have not been modified by another mapper)
> - not ways tagged natural=coastline
>
> That will reduce the cleanup in Canada by about an order of magnitude
> with zero negative effect.
>

Could the impacted objects have an attributed added to them so we can
easily review the impact before they're deleted? Could help us plan
replacement strategies.

  --G
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-26 Thread Corey Burger

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> Most of the Canadian data that needs cleaning is very low impact.
>
> Two of the high-volume decline accounts are primarily imports that
> have not been subsequently edited.  That means the effected data can
> easily be re-imported for a net-zero change.
>
> I recommend that we remove that data now, without delay.  That will
> simplify current cleanup activities by:
> - removing trivial doomed data
> - making interesting data cleaning opportunities easier to see
>
> I'd like to request that the data working group purge that data for
> us.  What do you think about requesting the removal of objects that
> are:
>
> - created by the known-bad accounts
> - version 1 (that is, they have not been modified by another mapper)
> - not ways tagged natural=coastline
>
> That will reduce the cleanup in Canada by about an order of magnitude
> with zero negative effect.
>
> Thoughts?  Request this of DWG, or no?

I like this idea. Getting moving on this sort of thing early is fairly key.

Corey

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Cleanup

2012-01-26 Thread Richard Weait

Most of the Canadian data that needs cleaning is very low impact.

Two of the high-volume decline accounts are primarily imports that
have not been subsequently edited.  That means the effected data can
easily be re-imported for a net-zero change.

I recommend that we remove that data now, without delay.  That will
simplify current cleanup activities by:
- removing trivial doomed data
- making interesting data cleaning opportunities easier to see

I'd like to request that the data working group purge that data for
us.  What do you think about requesting the removal of objects that
are:

- created by the known-bad accounts
- version 1 (that is, they have not been modified by another mapper)
- not ways tagged natural=coastline

That will reduce the cleanup in Canada by about an order of magnitude
with zero negative effect.

Thoughts?  Request this of DWG, or no?

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

47 matches

Mail list logo