Re: [Talk-GB] Wales Boundaries (Wrexham & Denbighshire)

[Shaun McDonald]

On 11 Aug 2009, at 06:41, Peter Miller wrote:

>
> On 10 Aug 2009, at 23:09, Bogus Zaba wrote:
>
>>
>> With Denbighshire however I made a new relation (192442) and am  
>> slowly
>> adding various ways that will make up this boundary. Not sure however
>> how to edit the Denbighshire entry in the wiki to add the links to  
>> the
>> way and the various analysis tools (b a r j links). Can someone
>> point me
>> in the right direction to do this.
>
> Open the wiki in edit and you will see the format which is
> {{BrowseRelation|xx}} where xx is the boundary relation
> number. Do add these to the wiki for any boundaries that have been
> started but not yet finished.

Why should boundaries that are not yet complete not be added to the  
wiki? Surely it would be better to have them there, just with the  
status marked as not complete. It also means that is someone is  
looking to continue the work of someone else then they can use that  
information in the wiki.

Shaun


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

[Talk-GB] Wales Boundaries (Wrexham & Denbighshire)

[Peter Miller]

On 10 Aug 2009, at 23:09, Bogus Zaba wrote:

> I have been working on these two relations. Wrexham is finished and  
> the
> entries on the WikiProject Wales are complete, because somebody  
> already
> put them there - I just fixed the relation (137981) and some of its
> members.

It is great that you are working on all this. I have just taken a l  
look at Wrexham and it is indeed complete - almost. There is a very  
small gap at the top which needs to be filled in before it will render  
properly. I will leave you to do that addition. You can see the fault  
most easily using the 'b' option in the relation browser.

When it is complete if should be rendered as a named area on the  
geofabrik boundary tool about 24 hours later. Here is the link to the  
tool, however you will need to pan and zoom to see the unitary  
boundaries for Wales (and it is clearer if you turns off layers 2 and  
4 as well).
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=boundaries

>
> With Denbighshire however I made a new relation (192442) and am slowly
> adding various ways that will make up this boundary. Not sure however
> how to edit the Denbighshire entry in the wiki to add the links to the
> way and the various analysis tools (b a r j links). Can someone  
> point me
> in the right direction to do this.

Open the wiki in edit and you will see the format which is  
{{BrowseRelation|xx}} where xx is the boundary relation  
number. Do add these to the wiki for any boundaries that have been  
started but not yet finished.

>
> Hope to move on to Flintshire and Conwy once Denbighshire is done.

Great stuff.

One change I have made for consistency with England is to change the  
tagging of Powys and Gwynedd to boundary=ceremonial because these  
places are not administrative area. It will also remove them from the  
geofabrik rendering which makes it clearer in regard what still needs  
to be done for the administrative relations in Wales.

Regards,



Peter


>
> Bogus
>
> ___
> 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] Progress on estimating coverage

[Shaun McDonald]

It would be interesting to see the same charts taking into account the  
nonames, to take into account the places that have been traced but not  
yet named.


Shaun

On 10 Aug 2009, at 23:35, Peter Reed wrote:

I have now fixed the problem I was having with measuring the length  
of roads in Buckinghamshire, and I have uploaded a new map of UK  
road coverage here - http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCover.png


FWIW here is a close up view of London as well - 
http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMLondon.png

For anyone who hasn’t seen the previous conversations, these compare  
the road lengths reported by the Department for Transport against  
the length of roads that have been plotted on OSM.


In other words in Cornwall, for example, the DfT reckons that there  
are about 7,500km of road, and about 3,500 have been plotted on OSM  
leaving about 4,000km to be added to OSM.


In Reading, on the other hand, the DfT reckons there are just under  
400km of road, but just over 400km have been plotted on OSM, leaving  
about 5km for the DfT to build.


I am still finding and removing glitches, but as things stand the  
highest levels of coverage (on these measures) seem to be in a  
number of London boroughs, the Isle of Wight, Birmingham, Reading  
and Portsmouth.


I’ll try to find time tomorrow to upload a summary of the numbers  
themselves for anyone who is interested.



___
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] Progress on estimating coverage

[Peter Reed]

I have now fixed the problem I was having with measuring the length of roads
in Buckinghamshire, and I have uploaded a new map of UK road coverage here -
http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCover.png

 

FWIW here is a close up view of London as well -
http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMLondon.png

 

For anyone who hasn't seen the previous conversations, these compare the
road lengths reported by the Department for Transport against the length of
roads that have been plotted on OSM. 

 

In other words in Cornwall, for example, the DfT reckons that there are
about 7,500km of road, and about 3,500 have been plotted on OSM leaving
about 4,000km to be added to OSM. 

 

In Reading, on the other hand, the DfT reckons there are just under 400km of
road, but just over 400km have been plotted on OSM, leaving about 5km for
the DfT to build.

 

I am still finding and removing glitches, but as things stand the highest
levels of coverage (on these measures) seem to be in a number of London
boroughs, the Isle of Wight, Birmingham, Reading and Portsmouth.

 

I'll try to find time tomorrow to upload a summary of the numbers themselves
for anyone who is interested.

 

 

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

[Talk-GB] Wales Boundaries (Wrexham & Denbighshire)

[Bogus Zaba]

I have been working on these two relations. Wrexham is finished and the 
entries on the WikiProject Wales are complete, because somebody already 
put them there - I just fixed the relation (137981) and some of its 
members.

With Denbighshire however I made a new relation (192442) and am slowly 
adding various ways that will make up this boundary. Not sure however 
how to edit the Denbighshire entry in the wiki to add the links to the 
way and the various analysis tools (b a r j links). Can someone point me 
in the right direction to do this.

Hope to move on to Flintshire and Conwy once Denbighshire is done.

Bogus

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cambridge reversion needed

[Shaun McDonald]

On 10 Aug 2009, at 18:51, David Earl wrote:


David Earl wrote:

Ito OSM Mapper has reported no changes in Cambridge since 3/8,  
otherwise
I'd have spotted this sooner. In fact, I've got no sessions recorded  
for

any of the areas I'm monitoring since 4/8 - Peter, do you know why?



The reason is that OSM Mapper only does ways whereas the bulk of this  
changeset was nodes, which OSM Mapper doesn't yet track and I'm hoping  
it will happen sooner rather than later.

It also looks like OSM Mapper is running 3 days behind again.

Shaun

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Progress on estimating coverage

[Peter Reed]

FWIW I've uncovered the problem with estimating coverage of Buckinghamshire.
I was counting Milton Keynes twice. Like you do.

 

To fix it takes a few hours processing, and I mucked up on my first attempt.


 

I realise the tension is almost unbearable, but I'll get there eventually.

 

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cambridge reversion needed

[David Earl]

David Earl wrote:
> I'll wrote to him/her.

Doh, my typing. 'write', of course. I've also added a feed on their 
edits so I can keep an eye on them.

Fortunately these were largely isolated nodes, and no one had touched 
them in the meantime.

Ito OSM Mapper has reported no changes in Cambridge since 3/8, otherwise 
I'd have spotted this sooner. In fact, I've got no sessions recorded for 
any of the areas I'm monitoring since 4/8 - Peter, do you know why?

David


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cambridge reversion needed

[David Earl]

Done.

I'll wrote to him/her.

David

Barnett, Phillip wrote:
> Make that location Coe Fen, not The Backs, sorry.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
> [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *Barnett, Phillip
> *Sent:* 10 August 2009 17:52
> *To:* Talk GB
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Cambridge reversion needed
> 
>  
> 
> There appears to be some accidental damage in Cambridge – a whole bunch 
> of tea rooms etc have moved into the Backs ( open marshy green spaces to 
> the West of the town. All appear to be from the same changeset 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2049927 created by a new 
> user, AliP, who was registered 4 days ago. Can someone revert this 
> quickly before it gets more complicated?
> 
>  
> 
> Apologies, but I’m at work so can’t actually spare the time to work out 
> how to fix this myself…
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> **PHILLIP BARNETT***
> **SERVER MANAGER**
> *
> 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
> LONDON
> WC1X 8XZ
> UNITED KINGDOM
> T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
> F
> E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
> WWW.ITN.CO.UK 
> 
> P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
> 
> Please Note:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
> represent 
> 
> those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. 
> 
> This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for 
> the use of the individual
> 
> or entity to which they are addressed. 
> 
> If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 
> 
>  
> 
> Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of 
> our clients and business,
> 
> we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank You.
> 
>  
> 
> Please Note:
> 
>  
> 
> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
> represent 
> those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. 
> This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for 
> the use of the individual
> or entity to which they are addressed. 
> If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 
> 
> Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of 
> our clients and business,
> we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
> 
> Thank You.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Cambridge reversion needed

[Barnett, Phillip]

Make that location Coe Fen, not The Backs, sorry.


From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Barnett, Phillip
Sent: 10 August 2009 17:52
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Cambridge reversion needed

There appears to be some accidental damage in Cambridge - a whole bunch of tea 
rooms etc have moved into the Backs ( open marshy green spaces to the West of 
the town. All appear to be from the same changeset 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2049927 created by a new user, 
AliP, who was registered 4 days ago. Can someone revert this quickly before it 
gets more complicated?

Apologies, but I'm at work so can't actually spare the time to work out how to 
fix this myself...


[http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif]
PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?

Please Note:







Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent

those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.

This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual

or entity to which they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk



Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business,

we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.



Thank You.


Please Note:

 

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent 
those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. 
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business,
we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.

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

[Talk-GB] Cambridge reversion needed

[Barnett, Phillip]

There appears to be some accidental damage in Cambridge - a whole bunch of tea 
rooms etc have moved into the Backs ( open marshy green spaces to the West of 
the town. All appear to be from the same changeset 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2049927 created by a new user, 
AliP, who was registered 4 days ago. Can someone revert this quickly before it 
gets more complicated?

Apologies, but I'm at work so can't actually spare the time to work out how to 
fix this myself...


[http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif]
PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?

Please Note:

 

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent 
those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. 
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business,
we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Progress on estimating coverage

[Peter Childs]

2009/8/10 Peter Miller :
>
> It's good to see continuing progress with English boundaries. I have added
> Leicestershire council and Plymouth UA to the English Boundaries page.
> However... I can't find find an administrative boundaries for Derbyshire
> County Council or for Staffordshire County Council. There are ceremonial
> versions of these which you might still be using instead.
> Thanks of all your work on this Peter. I am now offended that Suffolk is
> only light green! I guess I will have to do something about it, but that is
> the point. Anyone fancy mapping Suffolk? There are some lovely towns that
> need work.

Looks like I'm going to have to get Medway finished, its one of the
few Pale Green areas in the South East :)

Whats been used for the Medway UA boundary I know its not on the map
entirely yet.

It looks like may of the places with high coverage may have been
traced from yahoo and may not have as good map coverage as would be
nice, ie loads of Street without names etc. Hence place with a high
coverage may still need a lot more work.

Peter.

> One small suggestion - you might like to use a 'thermal' colour range;
> currently I am not able to guess which colour is associated with the highest
> coverage and the lowest etc. Feel free to use colours used by OSM Mapper in
> the 'thermal' range if that is useful.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter Miller

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

[Talk-GB] Progress on estimating coverage

[Peter Miller]

On 10 Aug 2009, at 14:48, Peter Reed wrote:


I’ve just posted an updated map of UK coverage at 
http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCover.png

There are a number of significant changes in this version:

a)  As I half suspected, there was an error in the way I was  
handling map projections in the previous version. This resulted in  
overstating the length of roads on OSM. I think I’ve now fixed this,  
and it seems to give more plausible results
b) We now have sensible looking boundaries for all the English  
higher level councils (Counties, Met boroughs, London & Unitaries)
c)  In theory, all the counties should now cover the admin  
boundary, not the ceremonial area. I’ve done some quick checks, and  
so far they’ve been OK – though Buckinghamshire looks suspicious.  
Previously some unitary authorities were counted twice, and pushed  
up the county figures


It's good to see continuing progress with English boundaries. I have  
added Leicestershire council and Plymouth UA to the English Boundaries  
page.


However... I can't find find an administrative boundaries for  
Derbyshire County Council or for Staffordshire County Council. There  
are ceremonial versions of these which you might still be using instead.


Thanks of all your work on this Peter. I am now offended that Suffolk  
is only light green! I guess I will have to do something about it, but  
that is the point. Anyone fancy mapping Suffolk? There are some lovely  
towns that need work.


One small suggestion - you might like to use a 'thermal' colour range;  
currently I am not able to guess which colour is associated with the  
highest coverage and the lowest etc. Feel free to use colours used by  
OSM Mapper in the 'thermal' range if that is useful.




Regards,



Peter Miller




___
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

[Talk-GB] Progress on estimating coverage

[Peter Reed]

I've just posted an updated map of UK coverage at
http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCover.png 

 

There are a number of significant changes in this version:

 

a)  As I half suspected, there was an error in the way I was handling
map projections in the previous version. This resulted in overstating the
length of roads on OSM. I think I've now fixed this, and it seems to give
more plausible results

b) We now have sensible looking boundaries for all the English higher
level councils (Counties, Met boroughs, London & Unitaries)

c)  In theory, all the counties should now cover the admin boundary, not
the ceremonial area. I've done some quick checks, and so far they've been OK
- though Buckinghamshire looks suspicious. Previously some unitary
authorities were counted twice, and pushed up the county figures

 

Buckinghamshire currently shows 117% of roads mapped. I suspect this is
something I'm doing wrong, or something wrong with the boundary,  but
haven't yet worked out what is going on. Similarly Barking and Lambeth could
be too high to be true.

Matching the road lengths to the current boundary of Cheshire and
Bedfordshire is a bit of a kludge because of the recent boundary changes.
There are better ways to handle these ,but for now they are rough
approximations.

OSM doesn't yet have decent boundaries plotted in Scotland and the parts of
Wales. I think I've figures out a way to use boundaries from the EU NUTS3
regions for an initial estimate. Most of these match local authority
boundaries, so I should be able to estimate coverage in a similar way for
most of them - I have the data, but I've not processed it yet.

 

Bearing in mind that these are initial results, with plenty of scope for
errors, and not much checking yet..

 

The lowest levels of coverage seem to be in :

 

North-East Lincs (24%)

Oldham (28%)

Tameside (32%)

Luton (35%)

S. Tyneside (37%)

Sunderland (38%)

Bolton (38%)

Barnsley (39%)

 

The highest levels of coverage (apart from Bucks, which I suspect is faulty)
are in:

 

Barking & Dagenham

Lambeth

Greenwich

Isle of Wight

Bexley

Kingston on Thames

Bromley

Birmingham

Reading

Portsmouth

Southwark

City of London

Kensington & Chelsea

 

(all of these come out just above 100%)

 

Luton (at 35%) and Bracknell (at 61%) stand out as the lowest coverage in
the South-East.

 

I'll upload more detailed figures later. Thanks for all the comments so far.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NAPTAN update?

[Shaun McDonald]

Hi Tom,

This is being discussed on the talk-transit mailing list:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Thomas Wood who is doing the import is on holiday for a couple of  
weeks at the moment if I remember right.


Progress status will be available on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Request_for_Import

Shaun

On 10 Aug 2009, at 09:52, Tom Chance wrote:



Hi there,

Looking at the wiki and talk-transit archives, it looks like we're  
close to
imports for the rest of the country after the successful trial in  
the West

Midlands.

It would be really helpful if somebody could notify this list when  
more

imports begin, and even lay out a timetable. I'm sure this will happen
anyway, but I found myself worrying because I haven't heard much  
about it

for what seems like ages.

I'm really looking forward to London being imported, it's going to  
be a fun

bit of work checking all the bus stops in the areas I've mapped.

Regards,
Tom

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




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Peer verification (was: Liam123 again)

[Richard Mann]

I think the data we are collecting breaks down into two sorts:
1) where stuff is
2) what stuff is

The "where stuff is" is the hard part - it is done by trogging round with a
GPS (and deciphering the resulting track), memory from visiting, or (least
hard, but subject to systematic error) tracing from the underlays. All of it
requires some judgement. If someone messes this up it's a pain to fix unless
you get there in time to simply reverse the changes; otherwise you're back
to scratch.

Whereas the "what stuff is" is easier to source (and multi-source). It's
easier to use the power of crowds.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that I think there could happily be
newbie limits on editing/deleting (as opposed to adding) "where stuff is"
info, but I think we could be a bit more cavalier about "what stuff is"
info. I don't think we need a huge construct of newbie-edit reviews. Either
ban newbies outright from editing/deleting locational stuff more than a few
metres, or develop a tool that flags such edits for review (to the newbie in
the first instance, to make them think twice). Turning off these warnings
could even be entirely in the user control - once they've found it in an
obscure corner of the editor's settings.

To summarise the summary - we are not wikipedia, we have major class
differences in the types of info we collect, and we should use that, rather
than copying wikipedia's approach.

Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] NAPTAN update?

[Tom Chance]

Hi there,

Looking at the wiki and talk-transit archives, it looks like we're close to
imports for the rest of the country after the successful trial in the West
Midlands.

It would be really helpful if somebody could notify this list when more
imports begin, and even lay out a timetable. I'm sure this will happen
anyway, but I found myself worrying because I haven't heard much about it
for what seems like ages.

I'm really looking forward to London being imported, it's going to be a fun
bit of work checking all the bus stops in the areas I've mapped.

Regards,
Tom

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Peer verification (was: Liam123 again)

[Tom Chance]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:15:23 +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> I suggest that this should be done at the level of a change-set, not  
> at the feature level. There would a change-set patrol page/rss feed  
> with an indication of which pages have been patrolled and by whom.  
> Change-sets can either be approved or challenged. A challenge might be  
> on the basis that it was an honest edit by an inexperienced  
> contributors or blatant spam etc. There would then need to be a  
> process to review challenged changesets further and resolve any issues.

I like this approach, but have a slight worry about the time it would
require. This isn't to say "don't do it", just "let's work this bit out".

In areas where you have a sufficient ratio of active users to changesets
this would work nicely with the right tools. Maybe, Peter, your OSM Mapper
tool (which I love - http://www.itoworld.com/static/osmmapper) could
indicate whether a user is a long-time contributor or quite a new
contributor? Can we have a set of flags on user accounts to say "new user"
for the obvious and "under probation" for users who have submitted
changesets that were challenged and reverted?

What about areas where we have very few mappers? Who will spot vandalism in
small pacific islands, or countries quite new to the OSM scene, or even
remote rural parts of Germany and the UK? Some vandalism - accidental or
deliberate - is very obvious, like a crazy railway line running all over a
town. Other vandalism could be more subtle.

I've never quite worked out why you'd want to join the teams who monitor
revisions on Wikipedia, it looks pretty dull to me! But great if people
want to do that.

Cheers,
Tom

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

[Talk-GB] Peer verification (was: Liam123 again)

[Peter Miller]

On 8 Aug 2009, at 11:11, Simon Ward wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:11:02PM +0100, Nick Barnes wrote:
>> To my mind, nobody ought to be able to edit live map data unless:
>>
>> 1 - They have uploaded n tracks,
>> 2 - They have had m edits approved by a moderator
>> 3 - They are vouched for by somebody who has made many many edits
>>
>> (insert 'and' or 'or' or 'and/or' as appropriate)
>
> It has already been said, but I think raising the barrier to
> contribution is the wrong way to go.

+1

Wikipiedia does have a restriction for new users in regard to  
uploading images. Only after a number of unchallenged edits (or a  
period of time - I am not sure ) is a user allowed to upload images.  
Given that image uploads are potentially particularly problematic and  
given that Wikipedia, ie primarily about the written word  then this  
limitation seems reasonable.

>
> Instead, I’d like to see a way of saying someone has verified the data
> without changing it.  This has been talked about by others before,  
> and I
> think every State of the Map conference has had presentations on the
> subject.

+1

I suggest that this should be done at the level of a change-set, not  
at the feature level. There would a change-set patrol page/rss feed  
with an indication of which pages have been patrolled and by whom.  
Change-sets can either be approved or challenged. A challenge might be  
on the basis that it was an honest edit by an inexperienced  
contributors or blatant spam etc. There would then need to be a  
process to review challenged changesets further and resolve any issues.

Here are details of Wikipiedia's Patrol pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Patrols

I like this group, the 'Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron' complete  
with emergence vehicles and flashing lights! Gives a clear message of  
support for new users that is very encouraging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron

Might it also be appropriate to only allow people to review change- 
sets only when they have themselves made a certain number of edits  
that have not been challenged? Not beyond trickery, but the level of  
trickery needed would be much higher than currently and would be  
sufficient for most purposes.

I really really think we need a new email-list for vandalism related  
issues - There is a 'data working group' chaired by Mikel but Mikel is  
probably not even on this list and I can find no information on the  
foundation website about their activities. I realise that some members  
of the data working group are on this list but that is by chance. I am  
keen that working groups get better integrated into the wider  
community and discussion and feel that the main talk list is just to  
busy for such a debate.


Regards,



Peter




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