[Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
Following on swiftly from Musical Chairs OSM Analaysis is now also running with the new OS Locator data. Warwickshire is the biggest gainer/looser with 33 new names; over half of the districts have got at least one new road and there are now only 8 places still at 100%. We do have 51 at over 99% and only 32 at under 50%. There is serious work in Wales, parts of Scotland, the West Midlands and Norfolk at present and in other places as well. Progress is however slowing down. We were at 20K roads per month and are now down to some 11K which is pushing completion back to Autumn 2013. Any more takers for the OS Bot? I still think we are using a lot of expert time to do very mundane work less well than a computer would manage. Anyone who says that bulk imports will damage the community should take a look at the Netherlands where they did a bulk road import some years ago and have a hugely strong community now. For the avoidance of doubt I will not bulldoze this proposal through against the majority wishes, but there are people asking why we are doing all this manually and I think they have a point and don't want the proposal to be forgotten. The bot will still make is clear that a manual survey has not been completed of the area and invite people to take a look. It will free up human effort to do work that can't be done by a computer. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot Regards, Peter Miller (user:PeterIto) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 3 June 2011 11:45, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi all, Some stats on OSM coverage of Kent. I tried to pair the records of KCC OpenKent with the OSM database. Assuming the KCC list is complete (which it is usually, but not entirely), we can estimate OSM's coverage in the area. Schools: 618 of 915 (915 (67.54 %) Pharmacies: 67 of 274 (274 (24.45 %) Doctors: 33 of 286 (286 (11.54 %) Libraries: 70 of 101 (101 (69.31 %) Opticians: 12 of 170 (170 (7.06 %) Hospitals: 24 of 33 (33 (72.73 %) So, OSM is good on some features and poor on others. It seems for profit locations are not so well mapped, compared to public services. My philosophy is that OSM omissions should be regarded as errors. 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. This data is distributed under OGL (and sometimes OS OpenData too). Can LWG attempt to reduce the legal uncertainty of this, by a definitive statement? My experience is that the LWG never makes definitive statements! I suggest that you turn the tables on them and send them an email saying that you will import the OGL-licensed data in xx days unless you get a statement from them in the mean time saying that it would be violating the OSM licensing terms and compromising your status as a contributor. Fyi, I was at a meeting where Francis Maude, the cabinet office minister, spoke about open data recently. He is very keen or this sort of use and is pressing for more data to be released and used. In light of that it would be a brave or foolish council officer who challenged such an import! Regarding data formats. Can I suggest that that we gratefully accept data in whatever format it is provided. We can ask politely for it to be in an better format but please don't complain either about the quality of the data or the suitability of the format which may support councils who will argue that they should delay releasing anything until they have got it right and in the perfect format. The phrase is 'raw data now' (warts and all). On a separate note. Would you be able to do a comparison between place names in NatGaz and in OSM. I think we will be surprised how many places we are still missing from OSM. My guess is that OSM only contains about 65% of the 50K places in that database. Here it is: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/nptg Regards, Peter Regards, TimSC ___ 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 08/06/11 08:15, Peter Miller wrote: My experience is that the LWG never makes definitive statements! I find that annoying sometimes but, if we are to follow to Spinoza's example that we should made a ceaseless effort not to [...] scorn human actions, but to understand them, LWG have to deal with legal advice that is also not definitive. Hopefully they can offer a definitive position on matters such as good mapping practice - like if we should import data of uncertain compatibility. I suggest that you turn the tables on them and send them an email saying that you will import the OGL-licensed data in xx days unless you get a statement from them in the mean time saying that it would be violating the OSM licensing terms and compromising your status as a contributor. I have set one or two deadlines on LWG in the past but it doesn't fit with their working pattern. Until now, nothing gets decided, or is put to discussion leading up to a decision, in any forum other than the teleconference. But to their credit, they are quite open and understanding when you do phone in and discuss matters. This is something I want to work on: to have a medium-long term discussion with LWG outside the weekly teleconference. I think the suggestion was met with a mixed response - discussions will continue. In the modern world with email, wikis, face to face, etc, there is more to life than teleconferences! Regarding data formats. Can I suggest that that we gratefully accept data in whatever format it is provided. We can ask politely for it to be in an better format but please don't complain either about the quality of the data or the suitability of the format which may support councils who will argue that they should delay releasing anything until they have got it right and in the perfect format. The phrase is 'raw data now' (warts and all). Agreed. If the data is even slightly usable, someone in the community can convert it. I am currently working on a legally gray dataset (which I am not importing, obviously) which is currently a mixture of closed data and data that a government agency aspires to make open data. They seem to lack the urgency or resources to separate the two, so I am doing it for them (without them asking) and I will ask nicely if they will release my data subset (for which they have the copyright). On a separate note. Would you be able to do a comparison between place names in NatGaz and in OSM. I think we will be surprised how many places we are still missing from OSM. My guess is that OSM only contains about 65% of the 50K places in that database. Here it is: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/nptg That is an interesting data set. I might use a different approach because it seems unlikely the original data contains significant errors(?). Currently, I use XAPI to query OSM for objects near to a record in the government database. I am not sure if the admins would appreciate me hammering the XAPI server with 50K requests! or that might be fine... I could use the UK dump, slice it to get place=*, import it into a separate microcosm server on my laptop, and then do XAPI requests to my laptop server. I will have a think. Regards, Tim ___ 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 07/06/11 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 Steve With a little bit more notice I would have been able to make it down :( :( Cheers Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 08/06/2011 08:15, Peter Miller wrote: ... On a separate note. Would you be able to do a comparison between place names in NatGaz and in OSM. I think we will be surprised how many places we are still missing from OSM. My guess is that OSM only contains about 65% of the 50K places in that database. Here it is: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/nptg On that separate note, places may be missing from OSM because they don't actually exist any more as separate entities. According to locals the place where I've lived for many years is either one or two villages depending on who you ask (OSM has it as two). The OS has about seven hamlets, three of which are in the nptg Localilities file as distinct localities in column 2, which I suspect predate the industrialisation of the area. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 08/06/2011 07:58, Peter Miller wrote: Following on swiftly from Musical Chairs OSM Analaysis is now also running with the new OS Locator data. Warwickshire is the biggest gainer/looser with 33 new names; over half of the districts have got at least one new road and there are now only 8 places still at 100%. We do have 51 at over 99% and only 32 at under 50%. There is serious work in Wales, parts of Scotland, the West Midlands and Norfolk at present and in other places as well. One bonus for me is that my home town (Gravesham) has zoomed up to 5th position as we are one of the lucky ones not to lose our 100% status. I wonder if the good folks at ITO could devise a way to analyse the not:name tags in the database and see whether any of them are now redundant? In other words, are the OS correcting any of the mistakes we appear to have identified? -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On Wednesday 08 June 2011, Steve Doerr wrote: I wonder if the good folks at ITO could devise a way to analyse the not:name tags in the database and see whether any of them are now redundant? In other words, are the OS correcting any of the mistakes we appear to have identified? I don't think it's a particularly awful thing for redundant not:name tags to stay in the database. I mean, the name is still not the value of the tag - the statement remains a truth. And who knows, next version of OS Locator could revert to the same error (how good are the OS at version control?). robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
Steve Doerr doerr.stephen@... writes: I wonder if the good folks at ITO could devise a way to analyse the not:name tags in the database and see whether any of them are now redundant? In other words, are the OS correcting any of the mistakes we appear to have identified? It would be cool to see a comparison the other way round: testing the OS data for accuracy using OSM as a reference. In inner London I think there are about 5% of names missing from OS - mostly semi-private drives or estates, but nonetheless signposted and addressable - so I think they would score no higher than 95%. (OS Street View is a bit better, I'd say that only about 2% of roads that exist are missing from it, and the 'false positive rate' of Street View showing a road where nothing is on the ground is almost nil. It's not as easy to do automated comparisons however. These numbers are totally off the top of my head and apply to London only.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ 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?
:-( sorry Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:14, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: On 07/06/11 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 Steve With a little bit more notice I would have been able to make it down :( :( 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] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
TimSC wrote: On 07/06/11 14:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote: 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. It's only hard because no-one's yet built a tool to do it. You don't have to be that other double-barrelled Tim to understand that linked data is the coming thing and that (as indeed timbl has pointed out) OSM is ideally suited to be part of this new world. But you have to have some way of linking, and stuffing OSM with every single id of every single dataset that might want to link to it is self-evidently _not_ the way to do it. It isn't as complex as you'd think. You could provide an OSM service which ensures some degree of id memory. Alternatively, you could provide a way of fuzzy matching without ids (the chemist around 52.9346, -1.87639). There's huge amounts of prior art to work from (Yahoo WOEIDs and all that). If only we had more people who were prepared to pull their boots on and actually do stuff :( 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. As a Produced Work, yes, you can - no matter whether OGL is compatible with ODbL+CT. ODbL allows you to make a Produced Work from a Collective Database. That's right at the top, in 1.0, in the definition of Produced Work. [...] 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. Well, I can only give you my own view as a map data consumer who's recently chosen to make a map from OS OpenData rather than OSM, and that is: completeness isn't the issue. OSM coverage is very very good in many areas. The OSM community is generally very responsive to requests like I'd like to use this area, would anyone like to map it? I've done this in the past and, one week later, the map was complete, surveyed by hand. The show-stoppers are different. OS OpenData has a more consumer-friendly licence than OSM. That's huge. Second, OSM is much harder to use, not principally because of tagging (which is trivial to parse) but because of vastly varying standards of precision. OS OpenData is both consistently attributed and generalised to a particular scale. If I'd wanted to make the West Oxfordshire Green Travel Map from OSM data, I know that the incomplete areas would have been mapped if I'd asked. (As it happens, they have been done since, independently.) But completeness wasn't the problem. 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! I'm not against tracing areas, or importing individual geometries, where the mapper has subject knowledge. If you know there's a stream there, by all means use Bing, or indeed VMD, to get the geometry right. (Indeed, that's why I collected and scanned NPE, and built the Vector Backgrounds feature into Potlatch 2, respectively.) And I'm certainly not against iterative improvement - that's the essence of OSM. But I am vehemently against contributions, of any sort, where you don't have knowledge of what you're contributing. No-one has a _right_ to sit down in front of Potlatch [other editors are available ;) ] and contribute if they
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 08/06/2011 15:58, Richard Fairhurst wrote: TimSC wrote: On 07/06/11 14:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote: 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. It's only hard because no-one's yet built a tool to do it. You don't have to be that other double-barrelled Tim to understand that linked data is the coming thing and that (as indeed timbl has pointed out) OSM is ideally suited to be part of this new world. But you have to have some way of linking, and stuffing OSM with every single id of every single dataset that might want to link to it is self-evidently _not_ the way to do it. It isn't as complex as you'd think. You could provide an OSM service which ensures some degree of id memory. Alternatively, you could provide a way of fuzzy matching without ids (the chemist around 52.9346, -1.87639). There's huge amounts of prior art to work from (Yahoo WOEIDs and all that). If only we had more people who were prepared to pull their boots on and actually do stuff :(.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Hardly code, but a few thoughts on this point: http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/06/possums.html Aaron Cope's building=yes (link in blog post) work uses WOEIDs and is much more sophisticated: therefore might be a good place to start with learning how to make them persistent. If I can get Peter Koerner to create a history extract of part of the UK, then I might play a bit as well. It realy helps to have a feel for the data in finding the real gotchas. Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
TimSC wrote: Straw man. [...] Sigh. [...] It is ridiculous [...] I guess I should not surprised you can't see the benefits [...] This seems to be a common thread of your arguments - you make wild claims Fair enough. It's fairly evident you don't see stuff on the same wavelength as I do. I could write a thousand points in response to that lot - asking how Mastermap's countryside coverage can possibly be outstanding without footpaths, and so on - and you'd respond with a thousand other points. We wouldn't really get anywhere. There's not really a lot of point going through fisking the whole lot, is there? It doesn't help the other n people reading this list. However, it _would_ be genuinely useful to other people, in my view, if you were to respond to my thread about private negotiations on legal-talk. Hopefully you'll either be able to do so or explain why not. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenKent-OSM-coverage-estimation-tp6434777p6454552.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
[Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 8 June 2011 07:58, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Following on swiftly from Musical Chairs OSM Analaysis is now also running with the new OS Locator data. Warwickshire is the biggest gainer/looser with 33 new names; over half of the districts have got at least one new road and there are now only 8 places still at 100%. We do have 51 at over 99% and only 32 at under 50%. There is serious work in Wales, parts of Scotland, the West Midlands and Norfolk at present and in other places as well. Progress is however slowing down. We were at 20K roads per month and are now down to some 11K which is pushing completion back to Autumn 2013. Any more takers for the OS Bot? I still think we are using a lot of expert time to do very mundane work less well than a computer would manage. Anyone who says that bulk imports will damage the community should take a look at the Netherlands where they did a bulk road import some years ago and have a hugely strong community now. For the avoidance of doubt I will not bulldoze this proposal through against the majority wishes, but there are people asking why we are doing all this manually and I think they have a point and don't want the proposal to be forgotten. The bot will still make is clear that a manual survey has not been completed of the area and invite people to take a look. It will free up human effort to do work that can't be done by a computer. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot Regards, Peter Miller (user:PeterIto) ___ 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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
The Warwick additions are all names in the defunct Stoneleigh Agricultural Show site. Must get over there and do a survey to see what's happening to any redevelopment there - unless anyone else wants to volunteer! I'm firmly of the opinion that this is not work for a bot unless a tag is added such as verified=no so we humans can search for what hasn't been surveyed. In Birmingham and Solihull I've personally surveyed every OS-Locator error before editing it and we have a pretty impressive list of OS errors (210 not-names from 8966 road names)and they're not all apostrophes either! ( Going out to survey far-flung street name errors also has the added bonus of an incentive to do some other basic surveying and improvement to the map) That's why we're stuck at 99.5% - the ones left are just too far away and scattered to motivate me or the Local Authority hasn't replied to my requests to inspect the definitive record. A bot will just replicate the OS errors and then we'll never find them! I'm also dubious that a lot of the progress to date has just been armchair stuff and we've just replicated any errors that the OS might have. That might be OK with most people but I've always seen OSM as proving that by local crowdsourcing, given enough mappers, we can produce more accurate data. Our problem in the UK is we don't have enough people on the ground and there's no consistent planned promotional effort to attract more people or - even easier just re-attract some of the early pioneers back to active mapping - at least they've shown they're willing and able and some of them would be pretty impressed both with progress and the capability of the tools at our disposal now. How about some analysis of inactive users who have a significant number of edits ( 50?) and doing an email shot? I'm willing to draft a text for discussion Regards Brian On 8 June 2011 07:58, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Following on swiftly from Musical Chairs OSM Analaysis is now also running with the new OS Locator data. Warwickshire is the biggest gainer/looser with 33 new names; over half of the districts have got at least one new road and there are now only 8 places still at 100%. We do have 51 at over 99% and only 32 at under 50%. There is serious work in Wales, parts of Scotland, the West Midlands and Norfolk at present and in other places as well. Progress is however slowing down. We were at 20K roads per month and are now down to some 11K which is pushing completion back to Autumn 2013. Any more takers for the OS Bot? I still think we are using a lot of expert time to do very mundane work less well than a computer would manage. Anyone who says that bulk imports will damage the community should take a look at the Netherlands where they did a bulk road import some years ago and have a hugely strong community now. For the avoidance of doubt I will not bulldoze this proposal through against the majority wishes, but there are people asking why we are doing all this manually and I think they have a point and don't want the proposal to be forgotten. The bot will still make is clear that a manual survey has not been completed of the area and invite people to take a look. It will free up human effort to do work that can't be done by a computer. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot Regards, Peter Miller (user:PeterIto) ___ 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] Housing Development Names
Looking at the cyclemap to see if I had made all the changes I thought I had I noticed the very prominent Knightshayes text on the map http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=13lat=52.92356lon=-1.12127layers=B0 This is a new housing development which when I added it to the map was still under construction but signed in lots of places though the development and neighbouring areas - however we are now a few years on and all the signs are gone and all the properties are occupied. The current tagging is is_in:Gamston, West Bridgford place:suburb name:Knightshayes landuse:residential The question is what should I do with it now? 1) Remove as it's no longer signed on the ground 2) Downgrade it to some other tagging for historic mapping 3) Leave it as it is and raise a bug report on OpenCycleMap to get that sort of place less prominent on the map 4) Change my tagging as it's wrong (the development is a suburb of the village of Gamston, itself a suburb of the town of West Bridgford which is effectively a suburb of the city of Nottingham (but it's not within Nottingham City Council area, it's Rushcliffe Borough/Nottinghamshire County council here) so the tagging should really reflect it's true place in that hierarchy. My inclination would be 2) - I don't like the idea or removing data which was collected on the ground but it doesn't feel like it should be on the map at all for general use. It's very much like the 1970s development my parents live on - a few people do know the name of that development but in reality most people would never have heard of it - the council treat it as being part of the neighbouring estate (which only the council and local bus operator seam to know about!), the Royal Mail and many other people assume that the whole estate itself are part of a much larger suburb. Certainly none of the commercial maps I have seen over the years mentioned it's development name (well apart from the really old ones which show the sports ground that gave it it's name, but they don't have the roads). Kev. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Code point updates
I have finished loading the latest OS CodePoint to create the post code overlays for England, Scotland and Wales. More info here: http://codepoint.raggedred.net/ -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 08/06/11 21:20, Brian Prangle wrote: I'm firmly of the opinion that this is not work for a bot unless a tag is added such as verified=no so we humans can search for what hasn't been surveyed. Wholly agree. A bot will just replicate the OS errors and then we'll never find them! Also agreed. I too have checked everything I have modified. A bot is just a lazy way of reaching some arbitrary target of completeness and completely misses the benefit of a survey. It will provide a phoney status that can be used in meetings to show how wonderful OSM is, when actually all of the OS errors will be incorporated into our DB when we can avoid them by simply checking on the ground. OS Locator is a great way of using OS surveyors to warn OSM surveyors that there are new places to check :-) -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Housing Development Names
Kev, What I’ve done a couple of times is to create a way encompassing the development and adding all the relevant details to that. As extra tags along with landuse=residential usually. I often find that if it’s a one road affair the new name for the road which comes along late in the development is completely different from the name developer gave the site when they started construction. Like you, I hate to dump data when you know it is factually correct, at least from some prior period of time. Cheers Andy From: Kev js1982 [mailto:o...@kevswindells.eu] Sent: 08 June 2011 21:39 To: OSM - Talk GB Subject: [Talk-GB] Housing Development Names Looking at the cyclemap to see if I had made all the changes I thought I had I noticed the very prominent Knightshayes text on the map http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=13 http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=13lat=52.92356lon=-1.12127layers=B0 lat=52.92356lon=-1.12127layers=B0 This is a new housing development which when I added it to the map was still under construction but signed in lots of places though the development and neighbouring areas - however we are now a few years on and all the signs are gone and all the properties are occupied. The current tagging is is_in:Gamston, West Bridgford place:suburb name:Knightshayes landuse:residential The question is what should I do with it now? 1) Remove as it's no longer signed on the ground 2) Downgrade it to some other tagging for historic mapping 3) Leave it as it is and raise a bug report on OpenCycleMap to get that sort of place less prominent on the map 4) Change my tagging as it's wrong (the development is a suburb of the village of Gamston, itself a suburb of the town of West Bridgford which is effectively a suburb of the city of Nottingham (but it's not within Nottingham City Council area, it's Rushcliffe Borough/Nottinghamshire County council here) so the tagging should really reflect it's true place in that hierarchy. My inclination would be 2) - I don't like the idea or removing data which was collected on the ground but it doesn't feel like it should be on the map at all for general use. It's very much like the 1970s development my parents live on - a few people do know the name of that development but in reality most people would never have heard of it - the council treat it as being part of the neighbouring estate (which only the council and local bus operator seam to know about!), the Royal Mail and many other people assume that the whole estate itself are part of a much larger suburb. Certainly none of the commercial maps I have seen over the years mentioned it's development name (well apart from the really old ones which show the sports ground that gave it it's name, but they don't have the roads). Kev. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Code point updates
Cool Chris. Are you updating tile rendering for those areas you have previously made available? Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net] Sent: 08 June 2011 22:01 To: Talk GB Subject: [Talk-GB] Code point updates I have finished loading the latest OS CodePoint to create the post code overlays for England, Scotland and Wales. More info here: http://codepoint.raggedred.net/ -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ 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] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 8 June 2011 14:18, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Steve Doerr doerr.stephen@... writes: I wonder if the good folks at ITO could devise a way to analyse the not:name tags in the database and see whether any of them are now redundant? In other words, are the OS correcting any of the mistakes we appear to have identified? It would be cool to see a comparison the other way round: testing the OS data for accuracy using OSM as a reference. In inner London I think there are about 5% of names missing from OS - mostly semi-private drives or estates, but nonetheless signposted and addressable - so I think they would score no higher than 95%. (OS Street View is a bit better, I'd say that only about 2% of roads that exist are missing from it, and the 'false positive rate' of Street View showing a road where nothing is on the ground is almost nil. It's not as easy to do automated comparisons however. These numbers are totally off the top of my head and apply to London only.) I do agree that it may now be interesting to include two new columns: 1) A list of not:names that orginated from OS Locator but where OS Locator does not currently contain that error. The challenge is that not all not:name entries in OSM will have originated from error in OS Locator; they could contain details of errors from other sources, such as Navteq or TeleAtlas or elsewhere. The practical approach may be to just publish the differences and not worry about the original source but include text from the not:name:note field which can provide any supporting information about where the error came from (such as duff data in TeleAtlas Oct10, or OS Locator June10). 2) A list of street names which are in OSM but which are not in OS Locator could be a good publicity tool for OSM and a good new source of errors for elements of a way (for example where a short section of a street associated with a bridge but the other way had a typo in OSM). I guess that needs would ideally have its own rendering layer? We might start with just a list on district page with no rendering and we come back to rendering at a later point. If others wished to create rendering now then that would be great! Finally. Might it be useful for us to accommodate have multiple not:name entries associated with a single road? For example where a single street has multiple different duff names from one or more different sources, ie OS Locator and Navteq both have different wrong names. Should we accommodate 'not:name_xxx' where xxx can be any text? Regards, Peter -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ 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 8 June 2011 09:39, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 08/06/11 08:15, Peter Miller wrote: My experience is that the LWG never makes definitive statements! I find that annoying sometimes but, if we are to follow to Spinoza's example that we should made a ceaseless effort not to [...] scorn human actions, but to understand them, LWG have to deal with legal advice that is also not definitive. Hopefully they can offer a definitive position on matters such as good mapping practice - like if we should import data of uncertain compatibility. Thank you for reminding me of that very sound advice. I suggest that you turn the tables on them and send them an email saying that you will import the OGL-licensed data in xx days unless you get a statement from them in the mean time saying that it would be violating the OSM licensing terms and compromising your status as a contributor. I have set one or two deadlines on LWG in the past but it doesn't fit with their working pattern. Until now, nothing gets decided, or is put to discussion leading up to a decision, in any forum other than the teleconference. But to their credit, they are quite open and understanding when you do phone in and discuss matters. This is something I want to work on: to have a medium-long term discussion with LWG outside the weekly teleconference. I think the suggestion was met with a mixed response - discussions will continue. In the modern world with email, wikis, face to face, etc, there is more to life than teleconferences! Great. In the end you may need to make a judgement on the import and you may decide to just get on with it! Regarding data formats. Can I suggest that that we gratefully accept data in whatever format it is provided. We can ask politely for it to be in an better format but please don't complain either about the quality of the data or the suitability of the format which may support councils who will argue that they should delay releasing anything until they have got it right and in the perfect format. The phrase is 'raw data now' (warts and all). Agreed. If the data is even slightly usable, someone in the community can convert it. I am currently working on a legally gray dataset (which I am not importing, obviously) which is currently a mixture of closed data and data that a government agency aspires to make open data. They seem to lack the urgency or resources to separate the two, so I am doing it for them (without them asking) and I will ask nicely if they will release my data subset (for which they have the copyright). Sounds like a very good approach. On a separate note. Would you be able to do a comparison between place names in NatGaz and in OSM. I think we will be surprised how many places we are still missing from OSM. My guess is that OSM only contains about 65% of the 50K places in that database. Here it is: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/nptg That is an interesting data set. I might use a different approach because it seems unlikely the original data contains significant errors(?). Currently, I use XAPI to query OSM for objects near to a record in the government database. I am not sure if the admins would appreciate me hammering the XAPI server with 50K requests! or that might be fine... I could use the UK dump, slice it to get place=*, import it into a separate microcosm server on my laptop, and then do XAPI requests to my laptop server. I will have a think. We are working on a capabilty to do programatic extractions of OSM without bothering the main OSM hosting but have no timescale at present. May be sooner or later so probably not worth waiting. Regarding a later comment that NatGaz may also contain errors. That is certainly true and I do not advocate any mindless 'import' of that data for this dataset which contains some old data and may be of a pretty low standard in places. However I know that there are many many places in the UK which are missing from OSM, some quite large. Another source of intelligence would be places in the UK (or indeed elsewhere in the world) which are in Wikipedia and which are not in OSM near the location given in Wikipedia. These are probably already available from FreeBase. Regards, Peter Regards, Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 8 June 2011 21:20, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: The Warwick additions are all names in the defunct Stoneleigh Agricultural Show site. Must get over there and do a survey to see what's happening to any redevelopment there - unless anyone else wants to volunteer! I'm firmly of the opinion that this is not work for a bot unless a tag is added such as verified=no so we humans can search for what hasn't been surveyed. In Birmingham and Solihull I've personally surveyed every OS-Locator error before editing it and we have a pretty impressive list of OS errors (210 not-names from 8966 road names)and they're not all apostrophes either! ( Going out to survey far-flung street name errors also has the added bonus of an incentive to do some other basic surveying and improvement to the map) That's why we're stuck at 99.5% - the ones left are just too far away and scattered to motivate me or the Local Authority hasn't replied to my requests to inspect the definitive record. A bot will just replicate the OS errors and then we'll never find them! I'm also dubious that a lot of the progress to date has just been armchair stuff and we've just replicated any errors that the OS might have. I agree entirely, which is why the proposal includes a verified=no field (it used to say 'surveryed=no' but I have just changed it on the wiki given that verified is a more common name). It might be better to clarify further as 'geometry:verified' or 'name:verified'. My concern with the current arm-chair mapping approach is that it may not include this verification tag and source:name. The bot would at least be able to do it right and allow for a subsequent ground survey. That might be OK with most people but I've always seen OSM as proving that by local crowdsourcing, given enough mappers, we can produce more accurate data. Our problem in the UK is we don't have enough people on the ground and there's no consistent planned promotional effort to attract more people or - even easier just re-attract some of the early pioneers back to active mapping - at least they've shown they're willing and able and some of them would be pretty impressed both with progress and the capability of the tools at our disposal now. How about some analysis of inactive users who have a significant number of edits ( 50?) and doing an email shot? I'm willing to draft a text for discussion There are lots of reasons why we don't have more contributors and how we could get more and lets all aim to build the community. What I disagree with it the theory that OSM in the UK would be damaged as a result of such an import. Netherlands is a good example that this does not happen. For sure there would no longer be any 'dragons' left in the form of blank spots on the map in GB but there is still plenty to do including verification. I do however know that this is an 'over my dead body' issue for some people in the community; my concern is that other voices are being drowned out whenever the subject of imports in general is raised and in particular this import. There are many more levels to OSM. I am enjoying doing speed limit hunting at present when travelling - plenty of blank spots on the map and reminiscent of the days when we had no aerial photography and no OS Open data when tracking down new roads! Why not see what is missing in your area :) http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=5lat=52.310633029288894lon=-0.5165746127230731zoom=8 Regards, Peter Regards Brian On 8 June 2011 07:58, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Following on swiftly from Musical Chairs OSM Analaysis is now also running with the new OS Locator data. Warwickshire is the biggest gainer/looser with 33 new names; over half of the districts have got at least one new road and there are now only 8 places still at 100%. We do have 51 at over 99% and only 32 at under 50%. There is serious work in Wales, parts of Scotland, the West Midlands and Norfolk at present and in other places as well. Progress is however slowing down. We were at 20K roads per month and are now down to some 11K which is pushing completion back to Autumn 2013. Any more takers for the OS Bot? I still think we are using a lot of expert time to do very mundane work less well than a computer would manage. Anyone who says that bulk imports will damage the community should take a look at the Netherlands where they did a bulk road import some years ago and have a hugely strong community now. For the avoidance of doubt I will not bulldoze this proposal through against the majority wishes, but there are people asking why we are doing all this manually and I think they have a point and don't want the proposal to be forgotten. The bot will still make is clear that a manual survey has not been completed of the area and invite people to take a look. It will free up human effort to do work that can't be done by a computer.
