Re: [Talk-GB] Liam123 is still active unfortunately
On 19 Jul 2009, at 23:02, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Peter Miller wrote: >> We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of >> nonsense and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors . >> This isn't a discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a >> good place to start. > > See also the recent discussion on talk that started with this: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038575.html > > where the author asked > > "Now we have the changesets like > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1815935 ... Is it > possible to add an "undo request button" or "spam button" to this > page?" Thanks Frederik. I have read the thread, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusion yet? I will continue the discussion about this problem there. Regards, Peter > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" > E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Liam123 is still active unfortunately
Hi, Peter Miller wrote: > We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of nonsense > and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors . This isn't a > discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a good place to start. See also the recent discussion on talk that started with this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038575.html where the author asked "Now we have the changesets like http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1815935 ... Is it possible to add an "undo request button" or "spam button" to this page?" Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Liam123 is still active unfortunately
Liam123 is back and still being disruptive. I was doing adding some attributes to railways yesterday and came across more damage by him. There are currently 164 ways around London/Kent/Essex where he is the last editor. Here are details of his recent edits : http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/liam123/edits Can we automatically revert all these changesets? Is that possible? If we don't revert his edits now we will have to get his permission to update the license which seems unlikely! Btw, I did have a problem with Potlatch where it appeared to revert the ways, but when I reloaded the data into Potlatch then a node (Upminster railway station which was at the end of a bunch of ways) had 'reverted' to the position he left it and wasn't where Potlatch had shown it when I pressed save if that makes any sense. We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of nonsense and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors . This isn't a discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a good place to start. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Hi, it is great to see this work on coverage. Thanks for putting this together! It is always nice to see how much has already been achieved and how much still needs to be done. There was a similar mail on talk-de today by Florian Lohoff (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2009-July/050800.html) on the coverage of OSM in NRW, one of the states in Germany, which might be of interest to this discussion. He has produced a nice map of coverage for the state (http://osm.gt.owl.de/Strassenliste/map-nordrhein-westfalen.html) and you can click on the individual counties to get more information on each. It takes a slightly different approach than the one Peter has used. Rather than comparing road km to official lists, it uses lists of names of roads in each county. I think they used road name lists coming from voter registers, and perhaps there are similar ways to get at such lists for the UK? Each method of cause has its advantages and disadvantages and it might be interesting to see how much these differ. Kai ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
http://mapzone.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/mapzone/didyouknow/howmany/q_14_64.html Q. How many kilometres or miles of road are there in Great Britain? A. In January 2001 Ordnance Survey calculated that the following kilometres (miles) of road existed in Great Britain: motorways - 4 353 km (2 705.41 miles). A Roads - 48 164 km (29 934.12 miles). B Roads - 30 216 km (18 779.37 miles). minor public roads - 314 392 km (195 395.89 miles). pedestrianised streets - 278 km (172.78 miles). I wonder how far we compare to this? Jack Stringer ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
> Oh just a thought, does the calculations include toll roads? Do the > DfT monitor these in their figures? (M6 toll, Severn Bridge etc.) > Yes they do. It's in the notes on the DfT website that private toll roads which form part of major routes are included, but private minor roads are not. Incidentally, I had a go at recreating the figures for Shropshire & Telford motorways I referred to earlier, excluding sliproads. I've done these by just making a new way down the centreline of the motorway on a local copy - and just finding the total length. I get 12.4km for Shropshire (spot on with the DfT figures) I get only 9.5km for Telford (DfT 12.0km) - which suggests that perhaps the DfT are including some sliproads for that one, but not for Shropshire - maybe to do with the more complex junction 5 being included in the total - or perhaps each authority submits the figures to the DfT - and Telford has chosen to include sliproads?? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Chris, Chris Hill wrote: BTW Frederik, does the (very useful) Geofabrik download for East Yorks use the coastline as its edge? No, just as I explained in my other post, it goes out to the sea for efficiency. See attached image, if it makes it onto the list. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" <>___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Do you expect the DfT to even have an idea of how many road they have to look after. It would not surprise me if their own list is no where complete. I think we will always have larger figures because we can measure ever meter of road and likley the DfT is just measuring the lengths according to what you can measure on a physical map. But still its a worthwhile endeavour because as it has already highlighted there are counties out there that need more data before we even catch up with the likes of the DfT. Is there any data for how many road miles Garmin, OS have. They usually like to have a figure to use in advertising. If we have a target then we can try to catch up with that. Oh just a thought, does the calculations include toll roads? Do the DfT monitor these in their figures? (M6 toll, Severn Bridge etc.) Jack Stringer ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
2009/7/19 Frederik Ramm : > Hi, > > Peter Miller wrote: >> There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should produced >> one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of England' and >> add the appropriate relations to them. > > Generally, relations that just serve the purpose of collecting things > are frowned upon. Relations are not meant to be a substitute for > categories. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories > ... > >> Here is the 'London Boroughs' relation as an example. I like the map >> that is produced from it. > > Yes, I have the impression that people often do collection relations > because they enjoy being able to simply request a relation/full OSM > document from the API and retrieve all the objects, rather than having > to find a working XAPI server and formulate a query. However this is > *really* something that should be done at search time and not in the > database - if we had grouping relations for everything that someone > possibly wants so search for... hm, ok, the "slippery slope" argument > doesn't help. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > When I created the relation (end of 2008), I was doing a mass tidyup of London Borough boundaries, I primarily created the relation so I could quickly pull up a neighbouring boundary relation in JOSM when I found another section of it. I was idly wondering if it could be turned into an is_in relation for some point for the Greater London region, even though it is implicit through the Greater London polygon (which may or may not be complete). Thanks for raising my attention to this, since I've now discovered that SteveC deleted the boundary relation for Tower Hamlets in Feb 09 I think it's time for another tidyup session... -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
> The way I have handled dual carriageways (and motorways) is to assume that > both carriageways are plotted separately on OSM. So the figure that > results > should be twice the length estimated by DfT. However, for primary roads, > DfT > themselves show the total length of primary road, and the length of this > which is dual carriageway. So by adding their two numbers, I effectively > double up their figure for dual carriageways, to reach the same (in > principle) as the OSM total. Hence I can ignore "dual carriageway" tags on > the OSM stuff. I think.> > calculation. Generally the figure for motorway is pretty close. I suspect > that significant differences in the motorway figure are down to errors in > the boundary position. It should be possible to compare adjacent > authorities > to see where these have resulted in a motorway appearing in the wrong > authority - but this is on my ToDo list for a later stage. The motorway figures aren't *that* close though. Your figures are almost all overstating the DfT's list. I count only a single authority that you've calculated the OSM length less than that of the DfT's. If it was purely due to boundary positions you'd expect that an overstatement in one authority would be balanced by an understating in the neighbouring authority. It does suggest that we're including things the DfT are not e.g. you mention sliproads. What would the figures be without highway=foo_link tags? Also, we might be double counting e.g. Shropshire. DfT list of motorways: 12.4km x 2 = 24.8km. OSM 55km That can't be right however we are counting, unless the OSM figures for Shropshire count that for Telford & Wrekin Unitary as well (which you've done separate analysis for). If that's correct then we're still over in both Shropshire County Council area (OSM ~ 29km vs 24.8km), and Telford & Wrekin (OSM 26km vs DfT 24.0km) - but it might be close if we remove sliproads? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
FWIW I've now updated http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/LGboundaries.csv to include a list of local authorities in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Interestingly I joined this list a while ago because I had got my > hands on some admin boundary data for England and wanted to know if it > was any good (the answer was no). I then forgot to unsubscribe. I'm > still planning to extend the Geofabrik excerpts to cover all English > counties individually once I have proper data. Unfortunately simply > using OSM boundaries only works for landlocked counties; the coastal > ones don't seem to include the coastline, and even if they did, a > "proper" coastline is not what you want to use for the excerpt, > instead you want to draw a line a few kilometres out to sea where the > border meets the coastline, then up/down in a straight line, and back > in - which saves computing time and also ensures that any pier etc. > that crosses the coastline is also included. > I have discovered recently that coastal counties end at the mean low water mark, with a few exceptions. I'm working on improving the boundary to be accurate, starting close to home in East Yorkshire. I need a few visits to the coast first. This will move the boundary, currently roughly along the line of the cliffs or sea wall further out to an estimate of the mean low water mark. It will allow a much needed tag for beaches, mud-flats etc. If you push the boundary further out to sea then any calculation of the area of the county will be unnecessarily large. I do agree that piers need some thought, and off-shore islands too. BTW Frederik, does the (very useful) Geofabrik download for East Yorks use the coastline as its edge? If so when I move the boundary I'll ask you to change the edge for the download. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
On the problems with Hampshire - my only related experience is that I had problems with POSTGIS unable to process a number of admin boundaries, because they are plotted with loops in the boundary. I.e. the boundary crosses over itself. This mostly happened where the coast had been added to the relation ,and the coast was plotted at a very detailed level. Far too detailed to see on Potlatch. I solved it by getting POSTGIS to "simplify" the boundary, before doing the calculations. That effectively removed points that were nearer than about 1 metre apart, and seemed to get rid of the problem. At 1 metre distance I don't think it's losing any precision in the final result. I'm on a pretty steep learning curve here so it may not be the best way of doing it. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Thanks for the interest and comments on my post about estimating coverage. In answer to some of the questions: The way I have handled dual carriageways (and motorways) is to assume that both carriageways are plotted separately on OSM. So the figure that results should be twice the length estimated by DfT. However, for primary roads, DfT themselves show the total length of primary road, and the length of this which is dual carriageway. So by adding their two numbers, I effectively double up their figure for dual carriageways, to reach the same (in principle) as the OSM total. Hence I can ignore "dual carriageway" tags on the OSM stuff. I think. Non-adopted roads, service roads, etc. Are certainly a potential source of error. Of course I am ignoring stuff tagged footpath, bridleway, cyclepath and the like. However I am not sure how DfT count slip roads, roundabouts, and the like, which would all add to the OSM total, but not necessarily theirs. At the moment I am ignoring stuff that is tagged "service road". Of course there may be all sorts of roads that are not counted by DfT that I cannot exclude. The question, I suppose is whether this makes a significant difference, or not. However, there are about 180 different categories of highway in the UK map. This initial attempt takes a rough cut, until I work out what is important. My initial guess is that outside the main categories few if any will make a significant difference to the totals. On reflection I probably shouldn't have included "unsurfaced". I am trimming ways at the admin boundary. I wasn't originally, and it makes quite a big difference, particularly on the figures for primary roads. There are also quite a lot of local government boundaries running along major roads, and my guess is that in some places the precise positioning of the boundary makes quite a big difference. I'm not sure that boundary plotting is accurate enough yet to classify these marginal areas properly. I have uploaded a summary of my view of the current status of relations for admin boundaries here - http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/LGboundaries.csv As you will see this table makes a distinction between the status in my extract database, and the current state of the OSM database. I extracted my data about a week ago. My main emphasis is on England, but I will try to add Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland in due course. The main database has moved on since I did the last extract so I've also run a quick check on that to show how it currently seems to stand. The process I used is slightly different, so there may be some inconsistencies. This list also shows English authorities (down to district) that I cannot find, and whether or not relations I can find are complete. Where I know they are the ceremonial, not the admin county I have marked them as such. I've also started to fix some of these myself in the main database by adding a new "county council" boundary - leaving the ceremonial one in place. I've also uploaded my summary of road length estimates here - http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/Roadlengths.csv The "Other" column gives an indication of how difficult I found it to classify the different types of road. Most of this is just tagged "road" but quite a lot is "unsurfaced", and should probably be excluded. The differences between different types of road are more significant than the totals. They may highlight some inconsistencies in tagging, and the may be of interest to people looking at an individual authority. At this stage, though, I would like to concentrate first on getting rid of anomalies in the overall calculation. Generally the figure for motorway is pretty close. I suspect that significant differences in the motorway figure are down to errors in the boundary position. It should be possible to compare adjacent authorities to see where these have resulted in a motorway appearing in the wrong authority - but this is on my ToDo list for a later stage. Note also the variations in the area shown on OSM and by government land use statistics. I think some of these will be due to areas of sea / estuary, etc included within the OSM boundary, but not land-use stats. Others are likely to highlight errors in the OSM boundary - particularly where I've picked up a Ceremonial county boundary without realising it. For what it's worth, my thoughts on tagging boundaries are: * Regions are a higher level of admin boundary in England, falling between "4" for England and "6" for "County". So they should have their own level of "5" * A Ceremonial boundary is not conceptually the same as an Admin Boundary, and should have its own relation, even if this is following the same line segments, in the same way as a district and county often share a common boundary * To group similar relations they should be given a common tag - e.g. , not their own common relation On moving the coverage estimates forward, I'm in for a couple of busy weeks at work, so I'm not likely to revisit t
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Hi, Peter Miller wrote: > Ok, thanks for that Frederik. You never know who will be on a list! Interestingly I joined this list a while ago because I had got my hands on some admin boundary data for England and wanted to know if it was any good (the answer was no). I then forgot to unsubscribe. I'm still planning to extend the Geofabrik excerpts to cover all English counties individually once I have proper data. Unfortunately simply using OSM boundaries only works for landlocked counties; the coastal ones don't seem to include the coastline, and even if they did, a "proper" coastline is not what you want to use for the excerpt, instead you want to draw a line a few kilometres out to sea where the border meets the coastline, then up/down in a straight line, and back in - which saves computing time and also ensures that any pier etc. that crosses the coastline is also included. > One limitation of OSM at present is that the category=Region_in_Engand > doesn't work if one also wants to tag the same relationship as something > else, for example as 'administrative county in England' or as > 'ceremonial county in England' or anything else. So would it be > appropriate to tag it as 'Region_in_England=yes'? Actually I assumed that any relation with boundary=administrative and a certain admin level and which lies within the England polygon would automatically be a "region in England"? Would you not be adding duplicate information by that extra "region_in_england" tag (or relation)? > What is good about relations is that a thing (way/relation) can be part > of many other things and there isn't another neat way of doing that in > OSM (other than using tag=yes where 'tag' is the category name). If you have many unrelated groups of the same type and something can be a member of any or all of them - for example cycle routes - then there's no alternative to relations. If the fact that something belongs to a group can be determined from existing tags, then a relation is not necessary. There is neither a need for a relation "footways in East Anglia" nor is there a need for "footway_in_east_anglia=yes" because the boundary of East Anglia is known and whether something is a footway is also known, thus the information is already there and should not be duplicated. This is different from cycle routes because whether or not a way is part of a cycle route cannot be seen from its existing tags (and the old route=... tag was insufficient because it only worked for zero or one route). > Should we suggest that the 'Footways in East Anglia', or more usefully > 'long distance footpaths in England' should be tagged as 'long distance > footpaths in England'=yes. No. I simply download all footpath relations, look at their length, compare it to some "long distance" threshold, and then I can give you a list of long distance footpaths. No need to tell me explicitly. What you are suggesting to do is something like the "is_in" tag, or like adding "length=1.2km" to a bit of road - you take the existing geometry and make a tag (or relation membership) from it, which thereafter has the potential to conflict with the geometry. If I remove half of the ways from a "long distance footpath", does it continue to be a "long distance footpath", or do I then need an editor that pops up an alert saying "Hey, you just shortened this and it now falls below the long distance threshold, please consider removing this from the long distance footpaths relation"? I agree this is all very much theoretical database babble but with your "regions in England", if, god forbid, I moved one of these to Spain in my editor, it would not be a "region in England" any longer, would it? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
On 19 Jul 2009, at 12:44, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Peter Miller wrote: >> There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should >> produced one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of >> England' and add the appropriate relations to them. > > Generally, relations that just serve the purpose of collecting > things are frowned upon. Relations are not meant to be a substitute > for categories. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories > > For example, you would not do a relation "buildings by Norman > Foster" because that can be simply done by adding a tag > "architect=Norman Foster" to the buildings. If "Regions of England" > is exactly a collection of relations with a certain admin level and > location, then it carries no extra information and should not be > created. (Rule of thumb: If you feel the desire to run a script that > would automatically add and remove things to/from a relation based > on their location and tagging then your relation is probably a > collection relation that does not add value.) > Ok, thanks for that Frederik. You never know who will be on a list! One limitation of OSM at present is that the category=Region_in_Engand doesn't work if one also wants to tag the same relationship as something else, for example as 'administrative county in England' or as 'ceremonial county in England' or anything else. So would it be appropriate to tag it as 'Region_in_England=yes'? > Having said that, it's all evolution, and if people really feel > there are advantages to using relations as collections then there's > probably nothing I can do against that ;-) > >> Here is the 'London Boroughs' relation as an example. I like the >> map that is produced from it. > > Yes, I have the impression that people often do collection relations > because they enjoy being able to simply request a relation/full OSM > document from the API and retrieve all the objects, rather than > having to find a working XAPI server and formulate a query. However > this is *really* something that should be done at search time and > not in the database - if we had grouping relations for everything > that someone possibly wants so search for... hm, ok, the "slippery > slope" argument doesn't help. What is good about relations is that a thing (way/relation) can be part of many other things and there isn't another neat way of doing that in OSM (other than using tag=yes where 'tag' is the category name). Possibly that is good enough, but if so then it should be outlined on the 'relations are not categories' page and it would of course be good to have a way of displaying all relations which match a search string. Should we suggest that the 'Footways in East Anglia', or more usefully 'long distance footpaths in England' should be tagged as 'long distance footpaths in England'=yes. Here is the Wikipedia category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Long-distance_footpaths_in_England Regards, Peter > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" > E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Hi, Peter Miller wrote: > There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should produced > one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of England' and > add the appropriate relations to them. Generally, relations that just serve the purpose of collecting things are frowned upon. Relations are not meant to be a substitute for categories. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories For example, you would not do a relation "buildings by Norman Foster" because that can be simply done by adding a tag "architect=Norman Foster" to the buildings. If "Regions of England" is exactly a collection of relations with a certain admin level and location, then it carries no extra information and should not be created. (Rule of thumb: If you feel the desire to run a script that would automatically add and remove things to/from a relation based on their location and tagging then your relation is probably a collection relation that does not add value.) Having said that, it's all evolution, and if people really feel there are advantages to using relations as collections then there's probably nothing I can do against that ;-) > Here is the 'London Boroughs' relation as an example. I like the map > that is produced from it. Yes, I have the impression that people often do collection relations because they enjoy being able to simply request a relation/full OSM document from the API and retrieve all the objects, rather than having to find a working XAPI server and formulate a query. However this is *really* something that should be done at search time and not in the database - if we had grouping relations for everything that someone possibly wants so search for... hm, ok, the "slippery slope" argument doesn't help. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
On 19 Jul 2009, at 11:54, Chris Hill wrote: Peter Reed wrote: Of the authorities I have managed to measure, the following all show more road mapped than the DfT believes exists: Having mapped every road in Hull (Kingston-upon-Hull since today is a Sunday), some are fairly new and may not appear on the DfT figures. How did you account for dual carriageways? If you counted both carriageways and DfT only counted the road once that might account for some the difference. Some of the dual carriageways in Hull use the dual_carriageway relation, though not all - I confess that I gave up adding it when it seemed to be completely unused. Firstly can I say thank you Peter! This is a great example of how OSM progresses with people popping up with new ideas and innovations where the first you hear of it is when the person has done it. I agree that dual carriageways are a potential source of over-counting. non-adopted roads might be another. Are you clipping roads at the boundary yet? If not there you may be including road sections that are only partly in the county. With regard to dual-carriageway relations, I think it is only a matter of time before they are taken up and then there will be a rush to add more as with the cycle routes and OpenCycleMap. I have added relations for dual-carriageways in my area as well. Could you publish a table of authority boundaries in the UK, their name, their admin-level and if you consider them to be complete or not? There are various manual boundary checks but none of them seem to work all the time and some say things are ok when other ones don't. We still don't understand why Hampshire is not recognised by Geofabrik boundaries viewer for example. I added some more boundaries to the England page today (ie some more I found on the map rather than ones that I added). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_England Btw, are people ok if I go through the existing ceremonial boundaries (the ones that are only ceremonial and not administrative) and change there tagging to boundary-ceremonial (rather than boundary=administrative)? A final point. How does one create relations containing relations? There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should produced one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of England' and add the appropriate relations to them. Here is the 'London Boroughs' relation as an example. I like the map that is produced from it. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/51908 Regards, Peter Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Peter Reed wrote: Of the authorities I have managed to measure, the following all show more road mapped than the DfT believes exists: Having mapped every road in Hull (Kingston-upon-Hull since today is a Sunday), some are fairly new and may not appear on the DfT figures. How did you account for dual carriageways? If you counted both carriageways and DfT only counted the road once that might account for some the difference. Some of the dual carriageways in Hull use the dual_carriageway relation, though not all - I confess that I gave up adding it when it seemed to be completely unused. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
> Of the authorities I have managed to measure, the following all show more > road mapped than the DfT believes exists: > There could be a number of reasons for this; 1.Our boundaries are plotted from old parish boundaries on NPE typically. I had to move the Trafford/Manchester boundary in a couple of places because it has obviously been changed when the Metropolitan Borough was set up. Also, NPE has variable accuracy. i.e. we could easily be including roads in OSM's count which actually are in different authorities on the ground. 2.I'm pretty sure the DfT list will include only roads maintainable at public expense or "adopted roads". In some areas there are quite a few unadopted roads - which could easily be on OSM. Roads in newly constructed housing estates sometimes take a while for these to become adopted. There are many new housing estates on OSM. In addition, have you included "highway=service" in your tally? Roads in supermarket car parks, driveways etc. won't be on the DfT list. i.e. we could easily be including roads in OSM's count which are not going to be counted on the DfT list. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Unsubscribe
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org 2009/7/19 Sarah McCulloch : > Unsubscribe me, please. :) > > 2009/7/19 >> >> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to >> talk...@openstreetmap.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Isle of Man mapping party - 1 August (Dan Karran) >> 2. Potlatch "Integrity" button. (Chris Andrew) >> 3. Re: Potlatch "Integrity" button. (WessexMario) >> 4. Estimating coverage (Peter Reed) >> >> >> -- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:36:46 +0100 >> From: Dan Karran >> Subject: [Talk-GB] Isle of Man mapping party - 1 August >> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >> Message-ID: >> <37d514850907181136s4684f92cwd55fc0f275fb7...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I've just added some information to the wiki about a mapping party I'm >> planning to hold on the Isle of Man in two weeks time, Saturday 1st >> August. If there's anyone on this list that would like to come along, >> please add your name to the wiki page at >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Isle_of_Man >> >> There's also a post about it at >> http://www.dankarran.com/blog/2009/07/help-map-the-isle-of-man >> >> >> Cheers, >> Dan >> >> -- >> Dan Karran >> d...@karran.net >> www.dankarran.com >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:51:44 +0100 >> From: Chris Andrew >> Subject: [Talk-GB] Potlatch "Integrity" button. >> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >> Message-ID: >> <307203ff0907182251p3043a255oe86cc72556e9c...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Hi, all. >> >> Some time ago, I realised from this list that it is possible to get an >> overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad tags >> etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be possible for >> Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I think this could >> hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. This would also have the >> long-term benefit of improving routing for projects such as Navit and >> OpenSatNav. >> >> What does anyone think? >> >> Chris (chris_debian) >> -- next part -- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20090719/4c4e2acc/attachment-0001.htm >> >> -- >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:04:35 +0100 >> From: WessexMario >> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch "Integrity" button. >> To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" >> Message-ID: <4a62d393.6090...@yahoo.co.uk> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Chris Andrew wrote: >> > >> > Hi, all. >> > >> > Some time ago, I realised from this list that it is possible to get an >> > overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad >> > tags etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be >> > possible for Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I >> > think this could hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. >> > This would also have the long-term benefit of improving routing for >> > projects such as Navit and OpenSatNav. >> > >> > What does anyone think? >> > >> > Chris (chris_debian) >> > >> Hi Chris, >> >> try using the keepright site, it does exactly that >> >> >> http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?lat=51.4336&a
Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch "Integrity" button.
Mario, Thanks for that. I've used the keepright site. I was just wondering whether the functionality could be piped into Potlatch, as the KR site already has the opposite option (to edit in Potlatch). Just seemed like a really obvious overlay to have available. Thanks, Chris. 2009/7/19 WessexMario : > Chris Andrew wrote: >> >> Hi, all. >> >> Some time ago, I realised from this list that it is possible to get an >> overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad >> tags etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be >> possible for Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I >> think this could hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. >> This would also have the long-term benefit of improving routing for >> projects such as Navit and OpenSatNav. >> >> What does anyone think? >> >> Chris (chris_debian) >> > Hi Chris, > > try using the keepright site, it does exactly that > > http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?lat=51.4336&lon=-2.17892&zoom=13&layers=B0T > > > Mario > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux: http://www.getgnulinux.org/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe me, please. :) 2009/7/19 > Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to >talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at >talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Isle of Man mapping party - 1 August (Dan Karran) > 2. Potlatch "Integrity" button. (Chris Andrew) > 3. Re: Potlatch "Integrity" button. (WessexMario) > 4. Estimating coverage (Peter Reed) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:36:46 +0100 > From: Dan Karran > Subject: [Talk-GB] Isle of Man mapping party - 1 August > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Message-ID: ><37d514850907181136s4684f92cwd55fc0f275fb7...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi everyone, > > I've just added some information to the wiki about a mapping party I'm > planning to hold on the Isle of Man in two weeks time, Saturday 1st > August. If there's anyone on this list that would like to come along, > please add your name to the wiki page at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Isle_of_Man > > There's also a post about it at > http://www.dankarran.com/blog/2009/07/help-map-the-isle-of-man > > > Cheers, > Dan > > -- > Dan Karran > d...@karran.net > www.dankarran.com > > > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:51:44 +0100 > From: Chris Andrew > Subject: [Talk-GB] Potlatch "Integrity" button. > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Message-ID: ><307203ff0907182251p3043a255oe86cc72556e9c...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi, all. > > Some time ago, I realised from this list that it is possible to get an > overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad tags > etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be possible for > Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I think this could > hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. This would also have the > long-term benefit of improving routing for projects such as Navit and > OpenSatNav. > > What does anyone think? > > Chris (chris_debian) > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20090719/4c4e2acc/attachment-0001.htm > > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:04:35 +0100 > From: WessexMario > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch "Integrity" button. > To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" > Message-ID: <4a62d393.6090...@yahoo.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Chris Andrew wrote: > > > > Hi, all. > > > > Some time ago, I realised from this list that it is possible to get an > > overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad > > tags etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be > > possible for Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I > > think this could hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. > > This would also have the long-term benefit of improving routing for > > projects such as Navit and OpenSatNav. > > > > What does anyone think? > > > > Chris (chris_debian) > > > Hi Chris, > > try using the keepright site, it does exactly that > > > http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?lat=51.4336&lon=-2.17892&zoom=13&layers=B0T > > > Mario > > > > > -- > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:41:27 +0100 > From: "Peter Reed" > Subject: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage > To: > Message-ID: <002701ca0855$17b59920$4720cb...@reed@aligre.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > There have been a number of attempts to estimate the level of UK coverage, > of varying levels of sophistication, but I've not seen any that compare the > length of roads mapped against actual road lengths. > > > > The Department for Transport publishes statistics on actual road lengths by > local au
[Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
There have been a number of attempts to estimate the level of UK coverage, of varying levels of sophistication, but I've not seen any that compare the length of roads mapped against actual road lengths. The Department for Transport publishes statistics on actual road lengths by local authority here http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roadstraffic/roa dlengths/. The number of complete administrative boundaries plotted on OSM has shot up in the last few weeks, so it's now possible to compare actual road lengths (or at least DfT statistics) against the lengths of road that are in the map. Over the last couple of weeks, I've had a first attempt at doing this for about 100 local authorities with decent boundaries. Of the authorities I have managed to measure, the following all show more road mapped than the DfT believes exists: London Borough of Kingston upon Thames 111% Birmingham City Council 109% Rutland County Council 108% London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 107% Portsmouth City Council 106% City of London Corporation 105% London Borough of Waltham Forest 105% London Borough of Merton 105% London Borough of Redbridge 104% Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 104% Reading Borough Council 104% London Borough of Hounslow 103% Kingston-upon-Hull City Council 103% London Borough of Sutton 103% Isle of Wight Council 103% London Borough of Barnet 102% London Borough of Islington 102% London Borough of Enfield 102% Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 102% London Borough of Brent 100% London Borough of Haringey 100% Given the scope for error in all this, the figures don't look too silly, and at least they suggests a pretty high level of coverage in these places. Eyeballing the map tends to confirm this. My measurements on the following authorities show the map holding less than half the roads that DfT believes exist: Ceredigion County Council 49% Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council 48% Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 45% Stoke-on-Trent City Council 45% Middlesbrough Borough Council 44% Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council 42% Cornwall County Council 42% Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 41% Sunderland City Council 41% Borough of Telford & Wrekin 41% South Tyneside Council 40% Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 40% Darlington Borough Council 34% North East Lincolnshire Council 33% Again, there is considerable scope for error, but these at least suggest a low level of coverage in these places. For anyone interested in the technicalities, I am doing this by loading a Planet OSM extract into a Postgis database. There are about 100 authorities where I haven't yet managed to extract a useable boundary, and a number of Counties where the ceremonial boundary that is plotted doesn't match the administrative boundary used by DfT. I hope this proves useful - if only so to suggest where to holiday in order to make the biggest impact. Hint: Cornwall, Cumbria, Norfolk and N. Yorkshire all seem to have a lot of un-mapped roads. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch "Integrity" button.
Chris Andrew wrote: > > Hi, all. > > Some time ago, I realised from this list that it is possible to get an > overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad > tags etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be > possible for Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I > think this could hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. > This would also have the long-term benefit of improving routing for > projects such as Navit and OpenSatNav. > > What does anyone think? > > Chris (chris_debian) > Hi Chris, try using the keepright site, it does exactly that http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?lat=51.4336&lon=-2.17892&zoom=13&layers=B0T Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
