[Talk-GB] Musical Chairs updated with new OS Locator
Hello all,
OS have released the May 2011 Locator database. I've updated musical chairs [1]
to use this new database. Also excitingly I've noticed they now define the
supplemental fields that come with each entry - so they are no longer just
labelled u0-7 in my app ("unknown0-7").
So you know what your duty is. Look at your local area and see if there's
anything new that you might have missed. Mostly new housing estates. Always
interesting.
robert.
[1] http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
Do you think that a heatmap of the different formats released by the councils, with an indication from us of preferred formats be worth considering. I know that Edinburgh council uses pdf but I don't have an idea of the status of other councils cheers Bob From: TimSC To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Cc: Bob Kerr Sent: Saturday, 4 June 2011, 11:56 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation On 04/06/11 11:04, Bob Kerr wrote: Hi, > > >Is there any way that we can request the data in a standard easy to use format, one that we can requested from different councils throughout the uk. That would be ideal because data standards enable sharing and use. On the other hand, any barrier to councils releasing the data might be used as an excuse not to share it at all. The problem is different councils have different levels of commitment to open data. The most popular formats from Kent seems to be Excel and RSS feeds. At least it is not PDF! If we can do this, and use a standard tool for comparison I think it would be beneficial for us and the local councils. If there isn't should we make one? > > My locateservices CMS goes some way towards this. An alternative, for data with high spacial accuracy (within GPS receiver accuracy), is to import it directly into OSM and maintain the data there. Also, I think the councils might be confused by any license beyond the most simple (that is just a guess though), so sharing the data back with the source might be problematic with OSM (with either the old or new license). TimSC___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
Bob, I spent 5 minutes trying to find Edinburgh council open data but I didn't find any. The format seems to be a moot point, if they don't provide permission for use of the documents - or at least they make them hard to find. Once a council recognises the need for open data, I would hope the need to avoid PDF is self evident - but I suspect it is a false hope. If they can't figure that simple point out themselves, we could try to persuade councils to use other formats but it probably will be an uphill battle... From the little I have seen, councils who have a dedicated open data website have recognised CSV as the defacto standard. (But I could be wrong.) My personal preferences for distribution are ODF, then CSV, then XML, then Excel, then PDF. The reason I don't rate CSV as the best is there is no definitive standard established. ODF is useful - even if I personally convert it to CSV for my own processing purposes - I can control the conversion. (Obviously for some things XML is the best, particularly live streams of data.) What I think is lacking is information that describes why open data is important as a policy. This information is readily available for open source software, in contrast. It is difficult to address the issue of data generally, as "data" is such a broad term. (And yes there is content out there, but it fragmented.) Regards, Tim On 07/06/11 12:39, Bob Kerr wrote: Do you think that a heatmap of the different formats released by the councils, with an indication from us of preferred formats be worth considering. I know that Edinburgh council uses pdf but I don't have an idea of the status of other councils cheers Bob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 7 June 2011 13:15, TimSC wrote: > What I think is lacking is information that describes why open data is > important as a policy. This information is readily available for open source > software, in contrast. It is difficult to address the issue of data > generally, as "data" is such a broad term. (And yes there is content out > there, but it fragmented.) > I agree on this, and think the Government could be more hands on in forcing councils to open data up. But one quick thought... look at it from the perspective of a local authority officer whose department has just suffered the first of several waves of cuts, and who has a busy workload. Why would they take the time and effort to compile and release data? Aren't most open data applications just gimmicky visualisations? Something we in the OSM community can do quite powerfully is to show council officers why it might be beneficial to the council and even why the officer concerned could benefit. Have a look at this project, which is trying to make this case for open data more generally: http://www.madwdata.org.uk/ In my patch (Southwark) the council has done absolutely nothing to open data up, but the GIS team are friendly and sympathetic and have sent me the odd data on street trees and cycle parking, and I've been working on and off with the food & housing teams looking at food growing space data which they lack and we can help crowdsource. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
TimSC wrote: > With complete lists of addresses, we can go and find exact positions > of these services. I am still unsure if this is compatible with the > relicensing. If you go out and find the exact position of a service, with a piece of paper and a pen (or a GPS or whatever), that's your data, not theirs. So of course it's compatible. And you should do that anyway. OSM is meant to be a crowd-sourced, constantly updated representation of what's on the ground, not some cheapass mirror of any dataset that Government happens to have lying around. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenKent-OSM-coverage-estimation-tp6434777p6449339.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 07/06/11 13:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote: If you go out and find the exact position of a service, with a piece of paper and a pen (or a GPS or whatever), that's your data, not theirs. So of course it's compatible. I think you miss my point. The datasets contain more than just their postal address. If the licenses are compatible, we can mash up the data. And you should do that anyway. This implies I don't already, which is a false. (Otherwise, why are you telling me I should?) OSM is meant to be a crowd-sourced, This is a meaningless statement in my way of thinking. Even if it was meant to be something, by some one, at some stage proves nothing. Just because it has been crowd sourced to some extent doesn't preclude other approaches. Some types of data are in OSM that are almost impossible to survey with our crowd sourcing resources. UK streams, for example, mostly were not crowd sourced (in terms of surveying). constantly updated representation of what's on the ground, not some cheapass mirror of any dataset that Government happens to have lying around. Any what if the government dataset is open and stomps on OSM's attempt? (Don't bother saying "improve OSM" because that IS the approach we use and still the government set is better, in some cases.) Duplicating other open data sets seems a waste of time - as you seem to imply by resurveying stuff already available elsewhere. I am not advocating we only import data either. A hybrid approach - import AND crowd source - is better. If you want crowd sourced surveying only, I suggest you start another project. Regards, TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
TimSC wrote: > I think you miss my point. The datasets contain more than just their > postal address. If the licenses are compatible, we can mash up the data. You don't need to put stuff into OSM to make it mashable-uppable. Most competent licences will have a Collective Work/Database provision to enable this. >> And you should do that anyway. > This implies I don't already, which is a false. (Otherwise, why are you > telling me I should?) Oh, cool. Sorry, I thought you were still using Yahoo imagery to trace places you'd never been. Glad you've stopped. :) > [...] > Any what if the government dataset is open and stomps on OSM's attempt? OS OpenData is easily the best free geodata available in the UK and I've just used it (in preference to OSM) to make a lovely paper map, but it hasn't killed OSM yet. :) > (Don't bother saying "improve OSM" because that IS the approach we use > and still the government set is better, in some cases.) Duplicating > other open data sets seems a waste of time - as you seem to imply by > resurveying stuff already available elsewhere. In a few cases, manually importing data can indeed be a useful tool. The high-resolution rivers and streams in VectorMap District are quite useful _if_ you know the stream is indeed there, which obviously VMD doesn't tell you. It's not really any better than using a combination of aerial imagery and your own knowledge, but it can be useful, yes. But this is pretty much only true where the data is impractical to survey yourself. The canonical example is: if you import a town's roads, you get a town's roads. If you survey a town's roads, you get a town's roads, footpaths, cycle routes, pubs, etc. etc. I'm sure there's been an example where an import has been significant in the success of OSM in the UK but I'm struggling to think of one. Maybe someone else can help? > I am not advocating we > only import data either. A hybrid approach - import AND crowd source - > is better. If you want crowd sourced surveying only, I suggest you start > another project. Fortunately, I _like_ the licence that 23135 people have said they'll move their data to, and only 387 have said they won't (that's 98.4% vs 1.6%). So I'm not planning to be one of the people moving to another project. :) cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
Hi, In Edinburgh the list of public roads is available here http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/177/register_of_public_roads/865/public_roads_in_edinburgh The reason that I refer to this is that the Data from OS is not as accurate or up to date as this data. There is also some roads that are not named. I know from experience that the OS data is not fully correct and neither is OSM data. However as we are correcting the roads in edinburgh, this gets filtered back to OS which in turn goes to ITO and eventually we will all have the same correct data, It will take some time. We also have very few surveyors. My point though is that we do have some data available from the council, and if we can create a heat map that shows which councils are releasing data then it may encourage others to do the same. My question is would it be worthwhile doing. Cheers bob From: Richard Fairhurst To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2011, 14:37 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation TimSC wrote: > I think you miss my point. The datasets contain more than just their > postal address. If the licenses are compatible, we can mash up the data. You don't need to put stuff into OSM to make it mashable-uppable. Most competent licences will have a Collective Work/Database provision to enable this. >> And you should do that anyway. > This implies I don't already, which is a false. (Otherwise, why are you > telling me I should?) Oh, cool. Sorry, I thought you were still using Yahoo imagery to trace places you'd never been. Glad you've stopped. :) > [...] > Any what if the government dataset is open and stomps on OSM's attempt? OS OpenData is easily the best free geodata available in the UK and I've just used it (in preference to OSM) to make a lovely paper map, but it hasn't killed OSM yet. :) > (Don't bother saying "improve OSM" because that IS the approach we use > and still the government set is better, in some cases.) Duplicating > other open data sets seems a waste of time - as you seem to imply by > resurveying stuff already available elsewhere. In a few cases, manually importing data can indeed be a useful tool. The high-resolution rivers and streams in VectorMap District are quite useful _if_ you know the stream is indeed there, which obviously VMD doesn't tell you. It's not really any better than using a combination of aerial imagery and your own knowledge, but it can be useful, yes. But this is pretty much only true where the data is impractical to survey yourself. The canonical example is: if you import a town's roads, you get a town's roads. If you survey a town's roads, you get a town's roads, footpaths, cycle routes, pubs, etc. etc. I'm sure there's been an example where an import has been significant in the success of OSM in the UK but I'm struggling to think of one. Maybe someone else can help? > I am not advocating we > only import data either. A hybrid approach - import AND crowd source - > is better. If you want crowd sourced surveying only, I suggest you start > another project. Fortunately, I _like_ the licence that 23135 people have said they'll move their data to, and only 387 have said they won't (that's 98.4% vs 1.6%). So I'm not planning to be one of the people moving to another project. :) cheers Richard ___ 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] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 07/06/11 14:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote: TimSC wrote: I think you miss my point. The datasets contain more than just their postal address. If the licenses are compatible, we can mash up the data. You don't need to put stuff into OSM to make it mashable-uppable. Most competent licences will have a Collective Work/Database provision to enable this. While this this strictly true, it is sometimes hard to associate external records with specific OSM objects. Some importing of reference and ID numbers makes this easier. And back to my original point, I am still not sure if under the new OSM license if I can mash up OSM data with, for example, OGL data as a "produced work". I think I remember you are in the camp that thinks there is no problem with that, legally speaking. But issues of license compatibility are probably best on the legal list anyway. This implies I don't already, which is a false. (Otherwise, why are you telling me I should?) Oh, cool. Sorry, I thought you were still using Yahoo imagery to trace places you'd never been. Glad you've stopped. :) Yeah I have reformed and seen the light. I now use Bing. :) [...] Any what if the government dataset is open and stomps on OSM's attempt? OS OpenData is easily the best free geodata available in the UK and I've just used it (in preference to OSM) to make a lovely paper map, but it hasn't killed OSM yet. :) Again, separate issue. Ok, contributors still contribute to OSM but how are we doing on users actually using OSM when it is incomplete compared to other data sets? Would we have more users if our coverage was better? I argue, yes of course. In a few cases, manually importing data can indeed be a useful tool. The high-resolution rivers and streams in VectorMap District are quite useful _if_ you know the stream is indeed there, which obviously VMD doesn't tell you. You are referencing the common guideline that mappers should only edit areas they have been to. I don't follow that guideline blindly, as you pointed out. Steve Chilton and myself have traced many streams from decades old maps. We like to think we are improving OSM and no one has complained about a specific stream edit yet, as far as I am aware. I had a few (four or five) queries about specific roads but the questions are always requests for confirmation rather than demands to stop importing. As far as I understand, your vision of a map which has only direct knowledge and survey would leave many countryside and mountainous areas very bare. You obviously consider this acceptable (and actually that view has some merit). Many tracing contributors don't. A near blank walking map is nearly useless - which is what would result, if we only have map data on OSM contributor accessible places. I guess you already thought of all this, so time for me to shut up on that point! It's not really any better than using a combination of aerial imagery and your own knowledge, but it can be useful, yes. (I feel like I am disagreeing with every point to make, but here goes!) I disagree. The quality of VMD is better than what I can produce using Bing - thanks to tree cover, or even GPS surveying with my consumer level gear. VMD is very detailed and precise (but not without errors, obviously). But this is pretty much only true where the data is impractical to survey yourself. The canonical example is: if you import a town's roads, you get a town's roads. If you survey a town's roads, you get a town's roads, footpaths, cycle routes, pubs, etc. etc. I agree (yay!) and that a badly managed import can drive away people from improving it. I still feel this is more of an issue with tools and physiology than the data import itself. For example, if I see a bus stop, I normally think that "Naptan has imported that, I will ignore it." - this is not an ideal attitude but it frees time to map other things. However, if I could easily distinguish between unverified imported data and surveyor data, I might do more on bus stops. We would then have a dataset that is better than either a pure OSM surveyor set and the original naptan data. We need to ask "how do we make this possible?" and move beyond the answer "ban imports". I'm sure there's been an example where an import has been significant in the success of OSM in the UK but I'm struggling to think of one. Maybe someone else can help? It depends on your definition of "import" (obviously). If you include tracing, I traced 90% of SE London and then Semantic Tourist used that in walking papers to survey it personally. Would that be an example? It also fits my vision of "import and improve". I traced the buildings for my neighbourhood in Guildford and then used that as a basis to collect addresses? Any good? From the point of view of improving coverage, naptan was a success. It was a disaster in terms of avoiding duplicates. It would be hard to argue that OS Openda
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
That looks like useful data. It looks to me like Edinburgh are not quite embracing open data - the terms and conditions for the entire web site is for "personal and non-commercial" use only. I stumbled on this recently: http://openlylocal.com/councils/open This list the councils that "do" open data. If this was promote it and re-visualise it (with a heat map or other display), it might encourage councils to be more open. Perhaps you shouldn't listen to me though in influencing institutions - my track record is not great! Anyone else have a more informed opinion? Regards, Tim On 07/06/11 15:15, Bob Kerr wrote: Hi, In Edinburgh the list of public roads is available here http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/177/register_of_public_roads/865/public_roads_in_edinburgh The reason that I refer to this is that the Data from OS is not as accurate or up to date as this data. There is also some roads that are not named. I know from experience that the OS data is not fully correct and neither is OSM data. However as we are correcting the roads in edinburgh, this gets filtered back to OS which in turn goes to ITO and eventually we will all have the same correct data, It will take some time. We also have very few surveyors. My point though is that we do have some data available from the council, and if we can create a heat map that shows which councils are releasing data then it may encourage others to do the same. My question is would it be worthwhile doing. Cheers bob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 07/06/11 16:02, TimSC wrote: It depends on your definition of "import" (obviously). If you include tracing, I traced 90% of SE London and then Semantic Tourist used that in walking papers to survey it personally. Would that be an example? It also fits my vision of "import and improve". Oops, It was UrbanRambler that did most of SE London! Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Are you coming to London on Sunday?
or saturday night http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011 Would be awesome to see you there Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Are you coming to London on Sunday?
On 07/06/2011 19:18, Steve Coast wrote: or saturday night http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011 Would be awesome to see you there Strange that the pub and restaurant chosen are not even in OSM! -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Are you coming to London on Sunday?
Someone should fix that! On 6/7/2011 3:05 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: On 07/06/2011 19:18, Steve Coast wrote: or saturday night http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011 Would be awesome to see you there Strange that the pub and restaurant chosen are not even in OSM! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
