Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
I've used old_name=* in places that might also be good to be a warning suppressor. Sometimes visible signs remain but may fade away, sometimes it's been a place I've resurveyed for OSM (changes from marketing during new development and road sign installation). There was one case where the end of the road had a big name(some mews) carved into the house but the sign at the entrance was different (some close), when I got home I noticed my photo of the sign actually said in small print "formerly some mews". I don't see too much problem with the not:name tag, it's what would be stored under the 'note' tag but gives it a maachine-readable format. But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should we record that too, and how? not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,... On 1 June 2010 22:46, Roy Jamison wrote: > Totally agree. Flooding OSM with not: tags is both pointless and > counter-productive. Why not implement a search engine type feature like > google suggest that spell checks and autocorrects. If the differences > between OS Locater and OSM are only minor, i.e. apostrophes, spaces in > names, etc then these could probably just be ignored instead of having > millions of not:* tags for all the possible permutations that *could* be > entered incorrectly by an end user. > > > > It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a lint > > tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the way > > to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool > > reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM? > > > > Still an interesting tool. > > > > > > 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 > -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
Totally agree. Flooding OSM with not: tags is both pointless and counter-productive. Why not implement a search engine type feature like google suggest that spell checks and autocorrects. If the differences between OS Locater and OSM are only minor, i.e. apostrophes, spaces in names, etc then these could probably just be ignored instead of having millions of not:* tags for all the possible permutations that *could* be entered incorrectly by an end user. > > It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a lint > tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the way > to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool > reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM? > > Still an interesting tool. > > > 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote: > We did have a similar discussion in-house at the design stage. We > could of course implement this and the data would then be locked away > into our systems and be hard for others to access and use for other > purposes unless we do further work to ensure that it is. We didn't > want to give any hint of an impression that we were trying to > 'privatise' knowledge about OSM and wanted to get something out fast. > > It would also ensure that the information was not available to others > using other tools unless they went to extra effort to read our files. > > I guess someone could put a monitor onto the minutely feeds to warn > about such changes and request that the change be reverted, but this > seems to be a lot more complicated. > > All in all the proposed approach ensures that this 'intelligence' is > generally available, and will be available on suitable and compatible > license to all. It is also flexible to deal with all sorts of 'mis- > information' which may have a habit of getting into the DB and can > easily be filtered out by people who which to have a more restricted > set of features. You see, this is the way I looked at it: This way you're taking a list of OSL streets , doing a match and then entering information about the OSL database into OSM (which I'll admit has its advantages as far as data distribution goes). Among the problems will come up is the fact that you don't have _real_ 1:1 correspondence of feature -> feature. There are often many OSM ways corresponding to a single OSL entry. Even things like bridges or speed limit changes cause us to start a new way. Are we supposed to put name:not in all of them? Rather than doing that, I thought: so, let's treat the OSL database as a list. We want to be able to go through the list and for each entry we want to be able to tick it off as "Got that"/"OSL is wrong"/"Acceptable alternate spelling"/"Not appropriate to be an OSM name"/etc , ideally until we have no outstanding disagreements left. In this way, what we'd be doing is making an augmented version of the OSL database, rather than shoving this information into OSM. This is what I've been working on - http://humanleg.org.uk/code/oslmusicalchairs/oslmcscreen_20100601.png [1][2] - is what I have working at the moment. Each box is an OSL entry. . The controls on the right would include the ability to change the status of the OSL entry. I do agree that there are problems with the data being locked away on a separate server, but I thought regular published dumps would help there. After all, it's just an augmented OSL database. I could (and probably will once I get more time) get the matching algorithm to respect the :not entry, which I think is actually a really good idea for OSM in general. Lots of features have common misspellings. robert. [1] - Note the coordinate transform offset. It's just a 27700 -> 4326 srid transform, but it's not working right! Can anyone please help me with this?! [2] - Yes, it has the disadvantage of not being in the same screen as the editor, necessitating a bit of parallel panning. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 1 Jun 2010, at 19:03, Chris Hill wrote: > Peter Miller wrote: >> >> On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:39, Chris Hill wrote: >> >>> Peter Miller wrote: We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. Details in our blog post of the subject. http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' etc etc. I hope there is not another convention for blocking tag values that we have overlooked. If there is we will of course adjust our code to accommodate it. there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie, monday edits will appear on wednesday etc. >>> >>> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is >>> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I >>> think "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How >>> about just putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS >>> Locator to show they have been checked on the ground. >> >> I was envisaging a technical development where the server would >> refuse >> to accept tag values that contradicted a not: tag, or possibly it was >> PotLatch that did so for it. To override the block one could of >> course >> delete the tag, but in time the removal of 'not' tags might be >> patrolled from the minutely diffs. > I think that is probably a step too far. Possibly! > > [...] >> For our more limited purposes we need a clear message in the data >> that >> means 'don't keep on highlighting this discrepancy between OSM and OS >> Locator' and I think that data belongs in OSM rather than in some >> ITO DB. >> > > It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a > lint > tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the > way > to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool > reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM? We did have a similar discussion in-house at the design stage. We could of course implement this and the data would then be locked away into our systems and be hard for others to access and use for other purposes unless we do further work to ensure that it is. We didn't want to give any hint of an impression that we were trying to 'privatise' knowledge about OSM and wanted to get something out fast. It would also ensure that the information was not available to others using other tools unless they went to extra effort to read our files. I guess someone could put a monitor onto the minutely feeds to warn about such changes and request that the change be reverted, but this seems to be a lot more complicated. All in all the proposed approach ensures that this 'intelligence' is generally available, and will be available on suitable and compatible license to all. It is also flexible to deal with all sorts of 'mis- information' which may have a habit of getting into the DB and can easily be filtered out by people who which to have a more restricted set of features. Regards, Peter > > Still an interesting tool. > > > 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
Peter Miller wrote: > > On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:39, Chris Hill wrote: > >> Peter Miller wrote: >>> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names >>> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. >>> >>> Details in our blog post of the subject. >>> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html >>> >>> >>> >>> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box >>> in Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). >>> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png >>> >>> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS >>> Locator data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' >>> etc etc. I hope there is not another convention for blocking tag >>> values that we have overlooked. If there is we will of course >>> adjust our code to accommodate it. >>> >>> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie, >>> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc. >>> >>> >>> >> >> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is >> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I >> think "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How >> about just putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS >> Locator to show they have been checked on the ground. > > I was envisaging a technical development where the server would refuse > to accept tag values that contradicted a not: tag, or possibly it was > PotLatch that did so for it. To override the block one could of course > delete the tag, but in time the removal of 'not' tags might be > patrolled from the minutely diffs. I think that is probably a step too far. [...] > For our more limited purposes we need a clear message in the data that > means 'don't keep on highlighting this discrepancy between OSM and OS > Locator' and I think that data belongs in OSM rather than in some ITO DB. > It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a lint tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the way to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM? Still an interesting tool. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 31 May 2010 11:02, Peter Miller wrote: > > We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names > which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. This is a great tool. I thought all the roads in my area had been mapped, but this highlights some new closes etc that have been build since the Yahoo imagery. It also helps prove that I can't type for toffee. :-) -- Philip Stubbs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 31 May 2010, at 12:00, Robert Scott wrote: > On Monday 31 May 2010, Peter Miller wrote: >> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names >> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. >> >> Details in our blog post of the subject. >> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html >> >> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in >> Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). >> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png >> >> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator >> data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' etc etc. I >> hope there is not another convention for blocking tag values that we >> have overlooked. If there is we will of course adjust our code to >> accommodate it. >> >> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie, >> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc. > > Oh. > > I've been working on something quite similar, only more > openstreetbugs-inspired and openlayers-based using my musical chairs > results. I saw that. Very nice and it seems that in this case a bunch of people started working on the same problem at almost the same time. It is certainly good to have lots of tools and people trying out all sorts of analysis. Plenty more to do! For the record ITO intend to produce some more analysis map views over the next few weeks. We have one in preparation to help improve routing data where the junctions (nodes) are coloured according to the number of links connected to them (their 'valency') and the links will be coloured to indicate various classifications and common errors. This view was requested by CycleStreets some time ago. We expect to offer this one with global coverage but may roll it out in stages to see how the servers hold up. A number of other views are also being developed although I am not clear about the timeline yet. We are also really keen to get OSM Mapper updating in under 12 hours again as it did in the old days when the DB was much smaller. We have sped it up a number of times only to see the DB grow in size again. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd > > > robert. > > ___ > 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:50, Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > >> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is >> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I >> think >> "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How about >> just >> putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS Locator to >> show >> they have been checked on the ground. > > All the roads I've mapped have been from survey, but what of those > ham-fisted moments in front of the computer? > > I think positively identifying what you disagree with is better than > side-effects of other statements. After all, source:name=survey > doesn't necessarily mean that you've checked the disagreement between > OS and OSM and confirmed that OSM is correct. Agreed, the 'not' would only be used when one is sure of the right answer based on some clear evidence and where there is a reasonably chance that someone might change it to an incorrect value. Possibly one could stretch the syntax a little more and put structure into the note tag as well. For example: name=Rosehill Road not:name=Rose Hill Road not:name:note=There are streetsigns on 'Rosehill Road' show different versions at each end, however I checked with the council and they say that the formal title is indeed Rosehill Road however they do not intend to change the other sign for the time being. Or Ref=A999 not:ref=998 not:ref:note=This used to be called the A998 but is now the A999 - some maps and signs still show A998 but the designation changed on the xx/xx/2010 Incidentally, with reference to Rosehill Road in Ipswich the signs do indeed vary at each end of the street - I haven't checked with the council though. I believe the OS choose the one with least spaces unless they get other guidance. Here is another example where OS Streetview and Google/TeleAtlas are not the same as the sign and I have used the proposed 'not:name:note' format for the note field. In this case however OS Locator hasn't complained so I think it is an example of where OS Streetview and OS Locator are not telling the same story. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4211155 Regards, Peter > > Cheers, > Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:39, Chris Hill wrote: > Peter Miller wrote: >> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names >> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. >> >> Details in our blog post of the subject. >> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html >> >> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box >> in Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). >> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png >> >> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS >> Locator data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' >> etc etc. I hope there is not another convention for blocking tag >> values that we have overlooked. If there is we will of course >> adjust our code to accommodate it. >> >> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie, >> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc. >> >> >> > > On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is > potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I > think "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How > about just putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS > Locator to show they have been checked on the ground. I was envisaging a technical development where the server would refuse to accept tag values that contradicted a not: tag, or possibly it was PotLatch that did so for it. To override the block one could of course delete the tag, but in time the removal of 'not' tags might be patrolled from the minutely diffs. There is an equivalent in Wikipedia where one gets a message saying 'an article of that name has already been deleted, please read the discussion before recreating it'. The message here would be 'someone suggested that that was not the right value for the tag, could you check and then try again'. For our more limited purposes we need a clear message in the data that means 'don't keep on highlighting this discrepancy between OSM and OS Locator' and I think that data belongs in OSM rather than in some ITO DB. > > I will certainly use your work to check any street that shows up on > 'my patch'. Great stuff. Peter > > Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:00, Ian Spencer wrote: Peter Miller wrote on 31/05/2010 11:02: We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. Details in our blog post of the subject. http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png Sure. Someone has already commented on the light coloured text. I suggest we darken it. Re small text, we will try making it a little larger while avoiding text that all runs in together. Currently one can normally zoom in to read it. With regard to the clipped text, yes I have noticed that and forgot to mention it in the post - apologies. I guess it is where the text runs over a tile boundary or something. We will take a look at that issue, but it might be later this week before we can do so. Regards, Peter Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' etc etc. I hope there is not another convention for blocking tag values that we have overlooked. If there is we will of course adjust our code to accommodate it. there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie, monday edits will appear on wednesday etc. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd www.itoworld.com Hi That worked well. My only request would be can you try and tweak the font sizing, as I struggled with some that was too small, and also some that was too large and had some clipping problems. For example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.38863&lon=-1.75422&zoom=17 Here there is a small box where the name extends over the box but then gets clipped (DEN CLOSE/ ALLWOOD GROVE). I find that if I zoom out it eventually unclips itself and, if the font is big enough, the whole word appears, so I guess it is one of those things where you need to tweak the font to the clipping rectangle a bit better. However, that is a nitpick - the net result is something clear and usable which is not swamping everyone with too much information, and appears nicely at a small zoom to pick out where the problems are. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Building with mapseg
On 1 June 2010 15:43, TimSC wrote: > Is there an easy way to find the tile reference for a given area. I > have found what I need so far by trial and error, but with 400 tiles > it can be a bit of a pain. > > -- > Philip Stubbs > > > Philip, > > A quick sketch on the method to go from tile filename to coordinates. Say we > use the filename su85se.tiff. The "su" part, the "85" part and the "se" part > each give a different northing and easting offset. The must be summed to get > the final bottom left corner position. > > The first offset is basically coarse grid letter offset and is found in a > look up table. The codes are arranged like this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_Grid_for_Great_Britain_with_central_meridian.gif > > The "85" is an intermediate offset, I think it is 8x1 metres east and > 5x1 metres north. > > The final code can be se, sw, ne, nw for a fine tile offset. The "n" sheets > are offset north by 5000m. The "e" sheets are offset east by 5000m. > > Each tile is 5000m by 5000m, as far as I remember so you can get the > coordinates of the other corners. > > Re-reading your question, I guess you really want the inverse of what I just > described? I hope that helps a little anyway. > > TimSC Thanks Tim. I had worked out that there was some logic to the tile numbers. Having downloaded the tiles for SU, I wanted to find the tile that contained Warsash. Each tile only covers a small area, so I opened tiles until I recognised an area. Then I tried others near that one to see which way they went. Now I have found Warsash, I can work my may through that tile and the ones beside it with ease. I really asked the question for when or if others start to use the tiles also. Regards, -- Philip Stubbs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is > potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I think > "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How about just > putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS Locator to show > they have been checked on the ground. All the roads I've mapped have been from survey, but what of those ham-fisted moments in front of the computer? I think positively identifying what you disagree with is better than side-effects of other statements. After all, source:name=survey doesn't necessarily mean that you've checked the disagreement between OS and OSM and confirmed that OSM is correct. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Building with mapseg
Is there an easy way to find the tile reference for a given area. I have found what I need so far by trial and error, but with 400 tiles it can be a bit of a pain. -- Philip Stubbs Philip, A quick sketch on the method to go from tile filename to coordinates. Say we use the filen//ame su85se.tiff. The "su" part, the "85" part and the "se" part each give a different northing and easting offset. The must be summed to get the final bottom left corner position. The first offset is basically coarse grid letter offset and is found in a look up table. The codes are arranged like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_Grid_for_Great_Britain_with_central_meridian.gif The "85" is an intermediate offset, I think it is 8x1 metres east and 5x1 metres north. The final code can be se, sw, ne, nw for a fine tile offset. The "n" sheets are offset north by 5000m. The "e" sheets are offset east by 5000m. Each tile is 5000m by 5000m, as far as I remember so you can get the coordinates of the other corners. Re-reading your question, I guess you really want the inverse of what I just described? I hope that helps a little anyway. TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
Peter Miller wrote: > We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names > which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. > > Details in our blog post of the subject. > http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html > > To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in > Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). > http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png > > Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator > data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' etc etc. I > hope there is not another convention for blocking tag values that we > have overlooked. If there is we will of course adjust our code to > accommodate it. > > there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie, > monday edits will appear on wednesday etc. > > > On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I think "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How about just putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS Locator to show they have been checked on the ground. I will certainly use your work to check any street that shows up on 'my patch'. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
I don't believe there would be any point in creating more tags for possibly incorrect names that are being searched for. A good search engine can do all that legwork for the end user giving suggestions like Google maps or something similar taking the hassle away. As far as street names vs OS Locator vs Street signs, they can all be wrong, no system is infallible, and there are many instances throughout the UK where even the local Council has had the street signs made wrong, I know there have been one or two in Swale! Stupid councils lol :) On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:12 +0100, Peter Miller wrote: > On 1 Jun 2010, at 12:18, Ed Avis wrote: > > > Peter Miller writes: > > > >> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names > >> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. > > > >> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator > >> data. > > > > I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street > > names. > > The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that > > somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name. OSM search > > engines > > might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion. > > > > It might be useful to distinguish slight spelling mistakes (such as > > the > > "Arthurs Close" mentioned) against cases where OS has a totally > > different > > name for the same bit of street. For variant spellings, there is no > > harm > > in adding them all as incorrect_name, alt_name or whatever. But I > > would > > not want an OSM search engine to pick up names which are known to be > > quite wrong. > > Not that the OS version of 'Arthur's Terrace' misses the 'R' as well > as the apostrophe! ie 'Athurs Terrace'. I would expect a search to > ignore apostrophe's but not 'R's! > > incorrect_name is also fine (but we don't use it at present); if that > one is the recommended practice for the community then we will use it. > Possibly neither have been used extensively yet and we should talk > about what we want. Personally I like the use of ':' because it is the > way other tags create a formal hierarchy, for example source:name; > 'Not' also has the advantage of being shorter. > > Regards, > > > Peter > > > > > > > -- > > Ed Avis > > > > > > ___ > > 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 1 Jun 2010, at 12:36, Ed Avis wrote: > Peter Miller writes: > >> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names >> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. > >> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in >> Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). >> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png > > Thanks, this is great work and another good resource for armchair > mapping > and janitorial work. What is the maximum zoom level for these tiles? > The tiles are generated dynamically (and are then cached). We can go in as close as Potlatch does. We are working on a slippery map browser at present which will be able to produce a summary view for the country. More about that next week hopefully. We are also creating stats for each administrative area (at district/ borough level). Here is our first cut - note however that our districts are a little out of date so some do not reflect current boundaries. We will be up to date with boundaries by net week. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/685499/OSM_OSLocator_stats.csv In summary, there are 10 authorities with over 90% coverage of OS Locator names (out of 400) and there are 7 authorities with less than 10% coverage of OS Locator names. Half the authorities (200) have over half the OS Locator names included. It is worth noting that OS Locator names include various tracks and footpaths without signs so it would be hard to achieve exceedingly high coverage without this data. We intend to make regular updates to these stats available through the ITO website from next week some time. Regards, Peter > It might help readability to have the text always in black colour, > and in > a fixed-size, non-anti-aliased font. Sometimes it is not readable. The > > -- > Ed Avis > > > ___ > 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 1 Jun 2010, at 12:18, Ed Avis wrote: > Peter Miller writes: > >> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names >> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. > >> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator >> data. > > I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street > names. > The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that > somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name. OSM search > engines > might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion. > > It might be useful to distinguish slight spelling mistakes (such as > the > "Arthurs Close" mentioned) against cases where OS has a totally > different > name for the same bit of street. For variant spellings, there is no > harm > in adding them all as incorrect_name, alt_name or whatever. But I > would > not want an OSM search engine to pick up names which are known to be > quite wrong. Not that the OS version of 'Arthur's Terrace' misses the 'R' as well as the apostrophe! ie 'Athurs Terrace'. I would expect a search to ignore apostrophe's but not 'R's! incorrect_name is also fine (but we don't use it at present); if that one is the recommended practice for the community then we will use it. Possibly neither have been used extensively yet and we should talk about what we want. Personally I like the use of ':' because it is the way other tags create a formal hierarchy, for example source:name; 'Not' also has the advantage of being shorter. Regards, Peter > > -- > Ed Avis > > > ___ > 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 1 June 2010 12:18, Ed Avis wrote: > I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street names. > The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that > somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name. OSM search engines > might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion. > If doing that, might I sugest that we support a wildcard *name* as the part of the search, that way any type of name including: old_name local_name incorrect_name_5 name_fr etc will be cought. JR ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
Peter Miller writes: >We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names >which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. >To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in >Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). >http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png Thanks, this is great work and another good resource for armchair mapping and janitorial work. What is the maximum zoom level for these tiles? It might help readability to have the text always in black colour, and in a fixed-size, non-anti-aliased font. Sometimes it is not readable. -- Ed Avis ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
Peter Miller writes: >We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names >which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. >Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator >data. I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street names. The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name. OSM search engines might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion. It might be useful to distinguish slight spelling mistakes (such as the "Arthurs Close" mentioned) against cases where OS has a totally different name for the same bit of street. For variant spellings, there is no harm in adding them all as incorrect_name, alt_name or whatever. But I would not want an OSM search engine to pick up names which are known to be quite wrong. -- Ed Avis ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Building with mapseg
On 29 May 2010 20:31, TimSC wrote: > Hi all, > > I have updated the code and put out a new version of mapseg (now v0.2). > As Roy Jamison discovered, the previous version was broken by upper case > filenames. The program is now case insensitive to that. Available here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapseg Is there an easy way to find the tile reference for a given area. I have found what I need so far by trial and error, but with 400 tiles it can be a bit of a pain. -- Philip Stubbs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Midlands Social this Thursday
Reminder that the next Midlands OSM social is this Thursday evening 3rd June in Bilston to the southeast of Wolverhampton. Weather is set fair so we expect to be mapping till around 8 or 8:15pm. See the cake on the wiki page for locations to map [1]. Call me on 0777 553 7872 if anyone wants to find out what's going on and where everyone is on the night. Afterwards we will be in The Sir Henry Newbolt, a JD Weatherspoons pub on Bilston High Street. Hope to see some new faces there? If you don't want to map that's cool, just come along to the pub for a chat. For those who have not been to a social before we regularly have on average 6 OSMers present. Cheers Andy [1] http://is.gd/cxWZu ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
