Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: > I for one would miss a publicly-deployed version. The matching of strings > really makes a difference between your data and the ITO one: > > 1. in well-mapped areas one finds a few places which either have not been > surveyed or require a re-survey, whereas the ITO comparison layer largely > shows finger trouble. So far I've found them completely complementary: yours > for the big picture, ITO locator comparison for the nitty-gritty of getting > fluff out of the data. > > 2. in areas with large numbers of nonames the ITO layer just has too much > data (and I have been trying to bang in names N of Liverpool). > > 3. Data from Musical Chairs gives a better handle on completeness, but when > compared with the ITO figures we can assess quality/validation as well. Well either way, I'll be dumping the code for whatever I do up on bitbucket for anyone to use. robert. ___ 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 Wednesday 02 June 2010, Roy Jamison wrote: > This may sound really stupid and may have been discussed before, but > could some of these errors be related to the Easter Eggs that OS put > into their maps to fight copyright issues? I know these restrictions > have been pretty much lifted and are under 'lenient' licenses now, but > is it possible that some of these may not have been taken out of their > map data? OS have always claimed to not put easter eggs in their actual data, and nobody has, to my knowledge, ever found any in _OS_ data. A-Z, collins, etc. are another story. robert. ___ 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
This may sound really stupid and may have been discussed before, but could some of these errors be related to the Easter Eggs that OS put into their maps to fight copyright issues? I know these restrictions have been pretty much lifted and are under 'lenient' licenses now, but is it possible that some of these may not have been taken out of their map data? Just a thought. ___ 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 2 Jun 2010, at 17:36, Sam Larsen wrote: >> >> From: Andrew Ainsworth >> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >> Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 16:57:48 >> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from >> ITO >> >> >> Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have >> talked about yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than >> tag our own data to say someone else has got it wrong, why not just >> report it to OS. After examining the postcode data for my area >> recently I found a couple of errors, reported them to OS who have >> replied saying there is indeed an error and they will send someone >> out to re-survey the street. >> >> We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think >> it's unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can >> improve their map. >> > > +1 +1 Just to say that I was in discussion with the research guys at the OS about this last week and the status reports which we hope to have online next week will include a section of 'not:name's for each district which they have expressed interest in reviewing. The only small issue could be over licencing, however I don't believe that they would ever want to act on a report in OSM without checking it first on the ground so it will purely be treated as a clue for their purposes. As it happened I met the local OS Surveyor (who covers Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal) and I was able to give her a few reports verbally which she entered on her tablet!. Given that the surveyors cover districts then the proposed district level reports could work really well - the OS would just need to alert their surveyors to the place to look for problems. We may even be able to give the district level RSS feeds which would be the icing on the cake. Until the problem is fixed we keep the not:name tag in the OSM DB. When it is fixed I guess we could remove the not:name tag for tidiness. I should have mentioned that we got some funding support for the OS Locator tiles from our research project, Ideas in Transit with support from the DfT and the Technology Strategy Board. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ideas_in_Transit Regards, Peter > > > > > ___ > 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
> >From: Andrew Ainsworth >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 16:57:48 >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO > > >Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about >yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than tag our own data to say >someone else has got it wrong, why not just report it to OS. After examining >the postcode data for my area recently I found a couple of errors, reported >them to OS who have replied saying there is indeed an error and they will send >someone out to re-survey the street. > >We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's >unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can improve their >map. > +1 ___ 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
Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than tag our own data to say someone else has got it wrong, why not just report it to OS. After examining the postcode data for my area recently I found a couple of errors, reported them to OS who have replied saying there is indeed an error and they will send someone out to re-survey the street. We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can improve their map. Andrew On 2 June 2010 16:29, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: > I for one would miss a publicly-deployed version. The matching of strings > really makes a difference between your data and the ITO one: > > 1. in well-mapped areas one finds a few places which either have not been > surveyed or require a re-survey, whereas the ITO comparison layer largely > shows finger trouble. So far I've found them completely complementary: yours > for the big picture, ITO locator comparison for the nitty-gritty of getting > fluff out of the data. > > 2. in areas with large numbers of nonames the ITO layer just has too much > data (and I have been trying to bang in names N of Liverpool). > > 3. Data from Musical Chairs gives a better handle on completeness, but when > compared with the ITO figures we can assess quality/validation as well. > > Regards, > > Jerry > > -- > *From:* Robert Scott > *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > *Sent:* Wed, 2 June, 2010 12:38:01 > > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO > > On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote: > > Great stuff. We would probably be able to work with a dump of excluded > > OS Locator entries in this DB however users may in the main prefer the > > convenience/familiarity of working directly in Potlatch or what ever > > rather than firing up another tool. Let us know when you start getting > > data into your system and we will see what we can do. > > Well, though I say I will probably continue to develop it a bit, I will > probably not deploy it to the public now (unless there is significant > interest) because I don't want to fragment any efforts. > > > 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 > > ___ 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 for one would miss a publicly-deployed version. The matching of strings really makes a difference between your data and the ITO one: 1. in well-mapped areas one finds a few places which either have not been surveyed or require a re-survey, whereas the ITO comparison layer largely shows finger trouble. So far I've found them completely complementary: yours for the big picture, ITO locator comparison for the nitty-gritty of getting fluff out of the data. 2. in areas with large numbers of nonames the ITO layer just has too much data (and I have been trying to bang in names N of Liverpool). 3. Data from Musical Chairs gives a better handle on completeness, but when compared with the ITO figures we can assess quality/validation as well. Regards, Jerry From: Robert Scott To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 12:38:01 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote: > Great stuff. We would probably be able to work with a dump of excluded > OS Locator entries in this DB however users may in the main prefer the > convenience/familiarity of working directly in Potlatch or what ever > rather than firing up another tool. Let us know when you start getting > data into your system and we will see what we can do. Well, though I say I will probably continue to develop it a bit, I will probably not deploy it to the public now (unless there is significant interest) because I don't want to fragment any efforts. 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
I'm with Andy on this. Virtually all the disagreements between names of roads which I have walked down and entered in OSM were down to thick fingers on my part. The places where the OS have got it wrong are few and far between (perhaps a bit less than 0.5%), but I had to go searching through photographs, audio files etc. to make sure that some of these were indeed OSGB errors, as my own transcription error rate is at least 10 times higher. Use of a not:name tag need not be widespread: it only needs to be used when there is an apparently authoritative source which is wrong (i.e., OSGB). To give two simple examples, where I have already used it: Smythson Drive is given as 'Smithson Drive' on StreetView and OS Locator. I could quite easily have assumed that the it was named after the architect Robert Smythson who is buried in the local church, but equally the person who signed the road might not have known the likely origin of the name. However, I do have photos of the street sign (which took me about 10 minutes to find). A not:name tag means that I don't have to do that again, and hopefully, it will discourage others from an error of commission. The Chancery located here on OS Locator, simply does not exist. It's quite nice not to go off to survey some figment of the OSGB's imagination. There is another misplaced (duplicate) road nearby. Again some formalised form of the note tag seems sensible to identify such cases. Of course, in the case of misnamed roads other more positive evidence can be included, for instance links to audio or image files. In the case of The Chancery I have also documented this on the relevant Wiki page. Regards, Jerry From: Andy Allan To: Chris Hill Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) Sent: Tue, 1 June, 2010 15:50:41 Subject: 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Stats update re OSM and OS Locator
Great! Works a treat. Thank you Ed :) On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:21 +0100, Ed Loach wrote: > Roy asked: > > > Is there any way to import the "OSL vs OSM" overlay into Josm > > or > > Merkaartor and do you have instructions for doing this please? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#JOSM > > and if you don't already have the JOSM SlippyMap plugin see: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/SlippyMap > > Ed > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Stats update re OSM and OS Locator
Roy asked: > Is there any way to import the "OSL vs OSM" overlay into Josm > or > Merkaartor and do you have instructions for doing this please? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#JOSM and if you don't already have the JOSM SlippyMap plugin see: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/SlippyMap Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Stats update re OSM and OS Locator
That's not too bad!!? 38% of roads in my District (Swale) are missing :( Is there any way to import the "OSL vs OSM" overlay into Josm or Merkaartor and do you have instructions for doing this please? Thank you :) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Stats update re OSM and OS Locator
We have produced another set of stats for OSM and OS Locator. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/685499/OSM_OSLocator_stats%2020100602.csv A quick bit of spreadsheet analysis between the two files shows that 7500 roads have been added in the past couple of days and that a bunch of places have increased their percentage by over 5%. The list of big gainers (>5%) is as follows and are ordered by the % increase - and yes, I should go and get a life but so should some people in Merseyside! Babergh Knowsley Suffolk Coastal Mid Suffolk Sefton Liverpool Pendle Gosport West Lindsey Burnley North Lincolnshire Sedgefield Braintree Tunbridge Wells Northampton We won't produce these daily, but I will publish another set in a few days. If we have time we will provide a way to view them online with an automatic update sometime next week. We also intend to add stats about comparisons with other datasets, including Edubase (for schools), NaPTAN (bus stops) and the NPTG Gazetteer (places) etc to help gauge the quality of different areas for different purposes. We will then be close to being able to recommend OSM for general usage in certain authorities where coverage is above a certain threshold. These later tests will not happen just yet though. Fyi, the following authorities have greater that 90% of OS Locator names in OSM (again in order of quality). Do remember that I got to test the tools out for a couple of days in Ipswich before they were released to everyone else! Ipswich Norwich Exeter Oxford Cambridge Birmingham Torbay Newport The City Of London City Of Edinburgh Regards, Peter ___ 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 Wednesday 02 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote: > Great stuff. We would probably be able to work with a dump of excluded > OS Locator entries in this DB however users may in the main prefer the > convenience/familiarity of working directly in Potlatch or what ever > rather than firing up another tool. Let us know when you start getting > data into your system and we will see what we can do. Well, though I say I will probably continue to develop it a bit, I will probably not deploy it to the public now (unless there is significant interest) because I don't want to fragment any efforts. robert. ___ 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
Andy Allan wrote: > I believe we need to track these false positives. If Ipswich is any > guide, and there is about a dozen errors per town, then there is going > to come a point where we are all repeatedly examining the same false > positives trying to track down the remaining few actual mistakes in > OSM. So we need to track them, and we want to make sure that mappers > notice that someone else has already marked the false positives. How > do we make sure that such record keeping works with ITO, and Robert > Scott's tool, and any other tool that compares OSM and OS Locator? How > do we make sure that all the mappers are aware of the situation, > whether they are using potlatch or JOSM (or merkaartor, or potlatch2, > or osm2go, or mapzen, or...). > > Having thought about the situation, I think that adding the not:*=* tags is only like other metadata tags like source=*, note=*, fixme=* etc. It will be used on a modest number of places. It provides a means of signalling many different difficulties, even the nonames problem which still lingers. So in spite of my original reservations I now feel this is a useful tag, and quite possibly useful beyond OS data. Sorry for the noise. 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 completely misinterpreted what was going on, just ignore me :) By the way, great to have OSL vs OSM overlay, definitely helps! ___ 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
It is quite common to add 'note' tags to OSM documenting why the data is tagged as it is, e.g. note=This used to be a pub, but is now closed note=There is no street sign, but locals confirm the name note=It appears OS has the wrong name 'Abbey Road'; street sign is Abbey Way Now, none of these strictly correspond to information on the ground. They are all meta-information of some kind. All the 'not:name' tag is doing is to take the third of these examples and formalize it a bit so that it can be used by automated tools. I think this is useful information to have in OSM. -- 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
On 2 Jun 2010, at 11:13, Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Roy Jamison > wrote: >> 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. snip > > Anyway, the whole discussion is detracting from getting on with stuff. > For example, we have 98% of street names missing in Oswestry. 98%!! > Half the regions in Peter's CSV have less than half the streets named. > Let's focus our discussions on fixing the map rather than discussing > the rare edge cases. Totally agree. If anyone want to get a quick win, then how about 'doing' the Scilly Isles. There are a total of 57 streets in OS Locator and there are only 37 in OSM. Looks like one hours work and we could have our first 'perfect' administrative area. Possibly a quick email would be needed to the authority to sort out an final uncertainties. Regards, Peter > > Cheers, > Andy > > ___ > 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 Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Roy Jamison wrote: > 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. I think you've misunderstood the issue under discussion. We're not discussing "millions" of tags, and we're not discussing "all the possible permutations" of names. We're discussing the occasional situation where OS Locator disagrees with OSM, and where the OS Locator turns out to be wrong. Exaggerating the situation doesn't help sensible discussion. I believe we need to track these false positives. If Ipswich is any guide, and there is about a dozen errors per town, then there is going to come a point where we are all repeatedly examining the same false positives trying to track down the remaining few actual mistakes in OSM. So we need to track them, and we want to make sure that mappers notice that someone else has already marked the false positives. How do we make sure that such record keeping works with ITO, and Robert Scott's tool, and any other tool that compares OSM and OS Locator? How do we make sure that all the mappers are aware of the situation, whether they are using potlatch or JOSM (or merkaartor, or potlatch2, or osm2go, or mapzen, or...). The simple, effective way that we can use right now is by tagging the OSM data. We could build another system, and change every editor and the relevant processing tools to support and use such a system, but since that doesn't actually exist yet I struggle to see how anyone could use it right now. Anyway, the whole discussion is detracting from getting on with stuff. For example, we have 98% of street names missing in Oswestry. 98%!! Half the regions in Peter's CSV have less than half the streets named. Let's focus our discussions on fixing the map rather than discussing the rare edge cases. 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
Peter Miller wrote on 02/06/2010 10:17: > On 2 Jun 2010, at 09:48, Ed Loach wrote: > > >> Gregory wrote: >> >> >>> But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should >>> we record that too, and how? >>> >> not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,... >> >> This perhaps relates to a discussion I just had on the irc channel >> about how to tag a road with two names. I've not checked the OS >> Locator source data, but there is a road in Wrabness which seems to >> have two names - Rectory Road and Primrose Hill. The best >> suggestions on how to tag this involved using the alt_name tag or >> using ; as a separator in the name tag as is commonly used for >> separating values already. (This arose as I'd tagged the name as >> Primrose Hill and the ITO comparison layer highlighted that Rectory >> Road was missing). >> >> So I'd suggest if it doesn't already that the layer recognise >> ;-separated lists in both name and not:name tag values. >> >> > I believe that Gregory was actually talking about a list of names that > the road isn't called rather than alternative valid names. > > With references to an earlier comment about the OSM DB being 'flooded' > with 'not:name' data I estimate that only 0.3% of roads in OS Locator > have errors so we are talking about a very small number of entries, > but they may be important entries. In that case that there are > multiple not:names, then possibly the ';' separator would be > appropriate to create a list, but I can't think of any instance where > I would use it at present. > > I guess what we are saying is that there is a difference between an > error (calling it High Street when it is actually Rectory ROad and > High Street is somewhere else in the village) and where some locals > refer to it as Rectory Road. The former go in not:name and the later > in alt:name. Or OS Locator layer should probably also check 'alt-name' > fields and treat them as matches. > > > Regards, > > > Peter > > >> Ed >> > I haven't really got my head into the database design to know of where it is weak or strong, but the critical issue is to have distinct, understandable entries where different meanings are around. If you introduce a new tag that has a distinct and clear purpose, then you can readily backtrack and merge it with something else. If you try and adapt and interpret tags, then you head down a path where the ambiguity allows others to take other views, and then you cannot manipulate the data. In this case, there are a couple of interesting issues. One it is country specific, and secondly we are talking about data that is not for publication. My suggestion would be: 1) That there should be a GB/UK specific group of tags (or more specifically country specific) so there is no need for these projects to seek world-wide consensus. 2) A country specific tag is assumed never to be rendered. 3) A country specific tag can be converted according to whatever rules are deemed appropriate into a formal tag, but there would need to be a convention on whether the conversion was one time (and therefore the tag should then be removed) or ongoing. 4) Within the tags, there could be a convention for working data. So we could have: gb:work:invalid-name Chelsee gb:way Unclassified County Road --> Highway:unclassified gb:project:OSVector:validated no Just a thought. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] Re: >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 1 Jun 2010, at 20:08, Robert Scott wrote: > 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. Great stuff. We would probably be able to work with a dump of excluded OS Locator entries in this DB however users may in the main prefer the convenience/familiarity of working directly in Potlatch or what ever rather than firing up another tool. Let us know when you start getting data into your system and we will see what we can do. There is plenty that we are not testing for. I don't believe that we check if the feature in OSM has a similar bounding box to OS Locator so only a part of the way might have the correct name. Possibly you system can help with that. We also of course completely remove the OS Locator boxes for matching entries which can be problem if one is trying to validate stuff. Fyi, we are also hoping to do a map layer showing OS Vector District data in places where is it not obsured by a buffered OSM way. This would highlight parts of the UK where there is a way in OS Vector District that is not within 8 meters of a way in OSM which might help with some additional error classes. Re multiple ways relating to bridges/speed limits I think our system will respond to a 'not' entry for any part of the bounding box for the associated OS Locator entry, however I have tended to add a 'not' entry to all relevant sections to be sure. A final point - we believe that have solved the name clipping problem on the currently deployed version. We have made the smallest text a bit bigger and have darkened some of the colours. We have not dealt with the other language issues (Gaelic etc). We may come back to that one later. Regards, Peter > > > 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. > > _
Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On 2 Jun 2010, at 09:48, Ed Loach wrote: > Gregory wrote: > >> But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should >> we record that too, and how? > not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,... > > This perhaps relates to a discussion I just had on the irc channel > about how to tag a road with two names. I've not checked the OS > Locator source data, but there is a road in Wrabness which seems to > have two names - Rectory Road and Primrose Hill. The best > suggestions on how to tag this involved using the alt_name tag or > using ; as a separator in the name tag as is commonly used for > separating values already. (This arose as I'd tagged the name as > Primrose Hill and the ITO comparison layer highlighted that Rectory > Road was missing). > > So I'd suggest if it doesn't already that the layer recognise > ;-separated lists in both name and not:name tag values. > I believe that Gregory was actually talking about a list of names that the road isn't called rather than alternative valid names. With references to an earlier comment about the OSM DB being 'flooded' with 'not:name' data I estimate that only 0.3% of roads in OS Locator have errors so we are talking about a very small number of entries, but they may be important entries. In that case that there are multiple not:names, then possibly the ';' separator would be appropriate to create a list, but I can't think of any instance where I would use it at present. I guess what we are saying is that there is a difference between an error (calling it High Street when it is actually Rectory ROad and High Street is somewhere else in the village) and where some locals refer to it as Rectory Road. The former go in not:name and the later in alt:name. Or OS Locator layer should probably also check 'alt-name' fields and treat them as matches. Regards, Peter > Ed > > > ___ > 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
Gregory wrote: > But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should > we record that too, and how? not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,... This perhaps relates to a discussion I just had on the irc channel about how to tag a road with two names. I've not checked the OS Locator source data, but there is a road in Wrabness which seems to have two names - Rectory Road and Primrose Hill. The best suggestions on how to tag this involved using the alt_name tag or using ; as a separator in the name tag as is commonly used for separating values already. (This arose as I'd tagged the name as Primrose Hill and the ITO comparison layer highlighted that Rectory Road was missing). So I'd suggest if it doesn't already that the layer recognise ;-separated lists in both name and not:name tag values. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
