Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
It would be better if ITO put long-roads-without-names in a separate layer, because at the moment they dominate the completeness map. On the whole I prefer to leave it a bit still. Ideally, everything would be checked by a local, but in reality it won't be. Quite a lot will be filled in by armchair mappers. At least there's a hope that those armchair mappers will have some conscience about what they do (like next year maybe they'll start drawing maps - with Maperitive it's easy - and expose the db to new scrutiny). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Code point updates
All of the tiles should render with the updated data. They were unavailable for a while yesterday during the update, is there a problem? cheers Chris Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: 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 New Data and bot
On 9 June 2011 09:33, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: It would be better if ITO put long-roads-without-names in a separate layer, because at the moment they dominate the completeness map. My strategy has been to deal with the long roads first and then go back and deal with the small ones. We are not planning to create a new map layer at present due to other priorities on our time (some of which will be of interest to OSM people!) On the whole I prefer to leave it a bit still. Ideally, everything would be checked by a local, but in reality it won't be. Quite a lot will be filled in by armchair mappers. At least there's a hope that those armchair mappers will have some conscience about what they do (like next year maybe they'll start drawing maps - with Maperitive it's easy - and expose the db to new scrutiny). I don't image that many people are including verified=no manually - it is just too much trouble! Indeed, here is a map showing verified/surveyed+souce:name in dark red, source:name without verified/surveyed in orange and any instances of verified/surveyed without source:name as blue (there aren't any at present!) http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117 You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed. The only instances of 'surveyed' or 'verified' + source:name are in Corby as far as I can see which was me testing the bot algorithm manually on a place which was at 23% completeness and which I go to 95% completeness. It took long enough for me to conclude that it was an inefficient way to do it. With the verified tagging in Corby someone can now go and check it if they so wish and ping off the verified=no tags as they do so. As I said, there are no other instances of verified/surveyed. surveyed=2010-10-08 would be neat, saying I checked all of the tagging on that date and made any corrections necessary! As such I think it is clear that without a bot we are indeed not going to be able to tell what has been manually surveyed and what has been grabbed from OS Locator. With a bot we would be able to. 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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 09/06/2011 10:09, Peter Miller wrote: Indeed, here is a map showing verified/surveyed+souce:name in dark red, source:name without verified/surveyed in orange and any instances of verified/surveyed without source:name as blue (there aren't any at present!) http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117 You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed. I've been putting source:name=survey, so a lot of my edits are in orange on this map. I don't know whether that's good or bad. -- 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
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: 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. Uhh... what? Is anybody updating the OSM map based on comparison with proprietary maps such as Navteq? I thought we didn't do that. Sometimes I find cases where the OSM name was wrong. When correcting it I add the old value as an incorrect_name tag. I suppose that some people might be using not:name for that purpose. 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? Yes, it would be a separate report and layer from the usual comparison. 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. Again could you explain where you're coming from with Navteq, etc? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ 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 9 June 2011 10:41, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: 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. Uhh... what? Is anybody updating the OSM map based on comparison with proprietary maps such as Navteq? I thought we didn't do that. I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should not be in also included in not:name. It certainly doesn't break any copyright to do so and provides strong evidence that we are doing proper surveying rather than copying. For example: Navteq (and Bing) incorrectly name the section of Nacton Road in Ipswich from the junction with Felixstowe Road heading east as Clapgate Lane. It isn't. It might be appropriate therefore to add a not:name entry to OSM at that point with a not:name:note saying that Navteq has a wrong. I haven't do so yet but had in mind to do this. Sometimes I find cases where the OSM name was wrong. When correcting it I add the old value as an incorrect_name tag. I suppose that some people might be using not:name for that purpose. Only if it is other than just an OSM naming error. 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? Yes, it would be a separate report and layer from the usual comparison. 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. Again could you explain where you're coming from with Navteq, etc? See above explanation. 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] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should not be in also included in not:name. It certainly doesn't break any copyright to do so and provides strong evidence that we are doing proper surveying rather than copying. I'm no lawyer so I cannot tell you that what you are doing is infringing copyright. But I think it is better to take a strict clean-room approach. You may be disciplined when looking at the Navteq maps side-by-side with OSM; you may know exactly how far you can go in adding information based on them; but I think it would be better to stick to a simple and clear policy of never using other maps unless we know the copyright status is okay. To my mind, adding not:name from Navteq may provide evidence that we are surveying - but it also provides evidence that we are looking at Navteq's maps! That makes it harder to argue independent creation if for any reason our map starts to closely resemble Navteq's and they allege copying. For example: Navteq (and Bing) incorrectly name the section of Nacton Road in Ipswich from the junction with Felixstowe Road heading east as Clapgate Lane. It isn't. It might be appropriate therefore to add a not:name entry to OSM at that point with a not:name:note saying that Navteq has a wrong. I think I might tag this if I saw widespread usage in web pages or secondary sources using the wrong name. But I would prefer not to know which particular proprietary map the error originated from. I'd suggest we reserve not:name for the OS Locator check, since that's overwhelmingly what it is used for - even if the tag name doesn't make that clear - and if there is a need to tag 'commonly used but wrong name' for a street we use something else like incorrect_name. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ 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 9 June 2011 10:44, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/06/2011 10:09, Peter Miller wrote: Indeed, here is a map showing verified/surveyed+souce:name in dark red, source:name without verified/surveyed in orange and any instances of verified/surveyed without source:name as blue (there aren't any at present!) http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117 You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed. I've been putting source:name=survey, so a lot of my edits are in orange on this map. I don't know whether that's good or bad. Sounds good to me! OK, so I have adjusted the algorithm. The map now shows: blue: for indication of ground survey (either 'local knowledge', 'survey', 'dictaphone' and 'voice') red: indication that the name is from OS streetview or locator (roughly in order of occurrence in East of England): OS Locator, OS_OpenData_Locator, OS OpenData Locator, OS_OpenData_StreetView, OS_opendata_streetview, OS_OpenData_OS_Locator, OS OpenData StreetView, OS_Openstreetview, OS Opendata StreetView, OS Streetview, os locator, OS_OpenData_Streetview, os open data, OS grey: Other value in source:name or other combination green: way tagged with surveyed=no or verified=no Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of occurrence)! All » Tags » Tag = source:name Value Way NodeTotal dictaphone 29400 2940 local knowledge 25940 2594 OS Locator 21480 2148 OS_OpenData_Locator 10050 1005 OS OpenData Locator 444 0 444 OS_OpenData_StreetView 427 0 427 local_knowledge 328 0 328 voice 201 0 201 survey 130 0 130 OS_opendata_streetview 76 0 76 OS_OpenData_OS_Locator 52 0 52 OS OpenData StreetView 37 0 37 photograph 34 0 34 OS_Openstreetview 32 0 32 npe 26 0 26 OS Opendata StreetView 25 0 25 landsat 20 0 20 OS Streetview 19 0 19 80n:dsc06129.mpg16 0 16 os locator 16 0 16 NPE 11 0 11 OS_OpenData_Streetview 10 0 10 publication 7 0 7 os open data7 0 7 signage 6 0 6 The Rushmere Commoners Committee5 0 5 OS_Locator 5 0 5 NAPTAN 5 0 5 npe/landsat 5 0 5 Local knowledge 5 0 5 Local Knowledge 5 0 5 (hospital address) 5 0 5 sign4 0 4 OS_Opendata_Streetview 4 0 4 street sign 4 0 4 OS Open data4 0 4 80n:dsc06133.mpg4 0 4 Survey 4 0 4 signage (October 2010) 4 0 4 memory 3 0 3 80n:dsc06107.mpg3 0 3 signage (Oct 2010) 3 0 3 http://www.creditgate.com/companysearch/credit_QU_9.aspx3 0 3 OS 3 0 3 Rushmere Commoners website 3 0 3 disctaphone 3 0 3 observation 3 0 3 OS Locator + NaPTAN 3 0 3 GPS 3 0 3 http://www.ukhotelnet.com/cambridge/hotels.htm 3 0 3 www.ukpubfinder.com/pub/32185 3 0 3 definitive_statement3 0 3 estate agent web site 3 0 3 OS Locator; GPS trace 2 0 2 Long Wood Path 2 0 2 OS Locator; bing2 0 2 knowledge 2 0 2 OS_Streetview 2 0 2 previous_node 2 0 2 web 2 0 2 Sales Office2 0 2 http://www.claveringonline.org.uk/Clubs%20amp;%20Societies/Bellringers.htm 2 0 2 roadsign2 0 2 communication with Commoners' Committee 1 0 1 Streetsign and OS Locator 1 0 1 Sign at W end of this portion 1 0 1 survey (no apostrophe on sign) 1 0 1 OS Openview Streetview 1 0 1 OS_OpenOS_OpenData_OS_Locator 1 0 1 http://www.cottenhampc.org.uk/pdfs/Cottenham_Moat.pdf 1 0 1 RSPB trail guide1 0 1 dictafone 1 0 1 naptan bus stop 1 0 1 Map displayed along the path1 0 1 os streetview 1 0 1 Streesign 1 0 1 local research 1 0 1 bing1 0 1 OS Opendata S.V.1 0 1 sign (Nov 2010) 1 0 1 newspaper 1 0 1 publications;news;internet 1
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 9 June 2011 12:14, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should not be in also included in not:name. It certainly doesn't break any copyright to do so and provides strong evidence that we are doing proper surveying rather than copying. I'm no lawyer so I cannot tell you that what you are doing is infringing copyright. But I think it is better to take a strict clean-room approach. You may be disciplined when looking at the Navteq maps side-by-side with OSM; you may know exactly how far you can go in adding information based on them; but I think it would be better to stick to a simple and clear policy of never using other maps unless we know the copyright status is okay. To my mind, adding not:name from Navteq may provide evidence that we are surveying - but it also provides evidence that we are looking at Navteq's maps! That makes it harder to argue independent creation if for any reason our map starts to closely resemble Navteq's and they allege copying. I hear your concern. I think we are all slightly paranoid on the subject but that is certainly better than not being paranoid (because you never do know if that are out to get you:) ) You will notice that I hadn't added that information and am not rushing to do us. For example: Navteq (and Bing) incorrectly name the section of Nacton Road in Ipswich from the junction with Felixstowe Road heading east as Clapgate Lane. It isn't. It might be appropriate therefore to add a not:name entry to OSM at that point with a not:name:note saying that Navteq has a wrong. I think I might tag this if I saw widespread usage in web pages or secondary sources using the wrong name. But I would prefer not to know which particular proprietary map the error originated from. I think that is a wise approach. I'd suggest we reserve not:name for the OS Locator check, since that's overwhelmingly what it is used for - even if the tag name doesn't make that clear - and if there is a need to tag 'commonly used but wrong name' for a street we use something else like incorrect_name. In the UK that may well be appropriate; elsewhere people may wish to use it in relation to their local agency. 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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of occurrence)! Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are! I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :) If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping* (yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know) Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and name them from the Locator. I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as recommended at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a verified/surveyed tag. So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to use it. Cheers, Graham http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS * While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way to make progress with the map. My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick) were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going on at all. So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone. Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM. ___ 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
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should not be in also included in not:name. That makes it harder to argue independent creation if for any reason our map starts to closely resemble Navteq's and they allege copying. I hear your concern. You will notice that I hadn't added that information and am not rushing to do us. OK. I may have made the common mistake of confusing the discussion of an action on the mailing list with the performance of that action. Can we agree, then, that it's a bad idea to tag anything in OSM that comes directly from proprietary maps such as Navteq - even if minor things like notes of errors in the other map - and so for any check of OS Locator versus OSM, we don't need to worry about not:name tags that might have been added for Navteq, because there won't be any. Thanks again (to you and your employees) for your work on these comparisons. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
I'd also like to give my support to using a bot to add names to existing roads. My views on this have moved one way then the other over the last few months. My main issues were based around 1 - It would reduce foot surveys which would mean missing out on POI's (etc). Now feel this argument is short sighted and we would still have to deal with how we map POI when all streets are surveyed, so that should not stop us using the OS data. We need to consider a future where roads are considered complete and how we keep on top of mapping ever changing POI's. I'd suggest 'POI Mapping Parties' using the Walking Papers tool. 2. - I was worried about the quality of data provided by OS due to reading thoughts of others. But although we often put a lot of focus on an OS error it appears that OS is far more accurate than the average OSM street walker. Looks like less than 3% errors, and many of these errors may turn out not to be errors (eg we've got it wrong, not OS). So this weekend I could go out and get names for remaining streets in my area, or we could use the bot. I believe the bot would result in less errors (but see point 1) So I'd support the bot. Adding a clear source tag is obvious and I don't think needs much discussion. Cheers, Jason (user:jamicu) ___ 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 9 June 2011 13:30, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of occurrence)! Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are! I have updated the highway source map view to also colour code ways with source=[OS streetvew/locator...] in purplel. Any that also have source:name are shown in the previously described colours. I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :) I thought that was great. Is that not what crowd-sources is all about? If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping* (yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know) Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and name them from the Locator. I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as recommended at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a verified/surveyed tag. So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to use it. Cheers, Graham http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS * While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way to make progress with the map. My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick) were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going on at all. So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone. Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM. Agreed. Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Jason Cunningham jamicuosm@... writes: I'd also like to give my support to using a bot to add names to existing roads. 1 - It would reduce foot surveys which would mean missing out on POI's (etc). Now feel this argument is short sighted and we would still have to deal with how we map POI when all streets are surveyed, so that should not stop us using the OS data. I would like to note that for me, using the OS data has been a great way to increase foot surveys. There are many areas which looked complete on the map, until OS showed that lots of roads (or public buildings) were missing. Adding those roads has spurred me to visit the areas on foot to mop up unnamed streets and to hunt down places of worship among other things. Different sources are complementary to each other and should not be viewed as alternatives. Even with 'classic OSM' we had Yahoo tracing combined with foot surveys. So this weekend I could go out and get names for remaining streets in my area, or we could use the bot... Please remember that you can do both - you can still visit to map by hand before or after adding information from OS or any other source. You might instead decide to concentrate your mapping time on those things that we can't get from OS as a first priority. But at least you are able to make an informed choice. However, to make sure that people have all the information when deciding what to go out and map, and to accommodate those who have quite reasonable concerns about ending up duplicating mistakes in the OS data, we need tools which show which parts of the map come from OS. ITO's map layer http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117 is an example. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Graham Stewart wrote: So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a restricted area There is a section of the relevant wiki page where people can request areas: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot#List_of_requested_places Note the column for Links to consultation and agreement with local mappers. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6457955.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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Since it looks likely that a bot is going to be run to add OS Locator names to unnamed British roads - something I strongly disagree with, but I can't stop - I demand that it is tagged with a common-sense, clear tag to show where this has happened. This should not be the bonkers cock-up that was described in the speed limit nonsense, and not a source tag, since many existing roads will have a source tag, e.g. source=survey. Verified=no does not say what is to be verified. I despair that the lazy, armchair mappers are taking over, but as I say, there's little I can do to stop it. If people want an carbon copy of OS datasets, why not just use OS datasets and let OSM mature into the best map of the world rather than a pastiche of imports. -- 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
Sorry to be posting again, however... I think the map view is now getting more useful and more stable. I have reworked the key to allow for more values and to make it more logical and it is now worth another look. Royal blue: source:name=survey or similar Red: source:name= OS or similar Purple: source:name=some other value Light blue: source=survey or similar Orange: source= OS or similar Light purple: source=something other value grey: no source:name or source provided Regards, Peter On 9 June 2011 14:39, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 9 June 2011 13:30, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of occurrence)! Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are! I have updated the highway source map view to also colour code ways with source=[OS streetvew/locator...] in purplel. Any that also have source:name are shown in the previously described colours. I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :) I thought that was great. Is that not what crowd-sources is all about? If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping* (yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know) Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and name them from the Locator. I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as recommended at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a verified/surveyed tag. So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to use it. Cheers, Graham http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS * While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way to make progress with the map. My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick) were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going on at all. So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone. Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM. Agreed. Peter ___ 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 9 June 2011 13:31, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should not be in also included in not:name. That makes it harder to argue independent creation if for any reason our map starts to closely resemble Navteq's and they allege copying. I hear your concern. You will notice that I hadn't added that information and am not rushing to do us. OK. I may have made the common mistake of confusing the discussion of an action on the mailing list with the performance of that action. Can we agree, then, that it's a bad idea to tag anything in OSM that comes directly from proprietary maps such as Navteq - even if minor things like notes of errors in the other map - and so for any check of OS Locator versus OSM, we don't need to worry about not:name tags that might have been added for Navteq, because there won't be any. Fine by me. Thanks again (to you and your employees) for your work on these comparisons. We are enjoying it loads. When we started supporting OSM there were 3,000 contributors and there are now 100 times that number! Unbelievable. When we started we were worrying about trunk roads and now we are worrying about voltages on power lines and the exact location of shipping buoys. Unbelievable. The real heros are of course the folk out there who are doing the foot work (and indeed the armchair work ;) and who argue out all the tagging standards and do everything else that keep the wheels on this thing. 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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Chris Hill osm@... writes: Since it looks likely that a bot is going to be run to add OS Locator names to unnamed British roads - something I strongly disagree with, but I can't stop - I demand that it is tagged with a common-sense, clear tag to show where this has happened. This should not be the bonkers cock-up that was described in the speed limit nonsense, and not a source tag, since many existing roads will have a source tag, e.g. source=survey. Would a tag source:name=OS be specific enough? Perhaps - and I'm just suggesting this as a possibility - the name could be added as unverified_name=X or name:OS=X or some other scheme. Then users of the OSM data could decide for themselves whether they strictly insist on ground survey (at the expense of coverage completeness) or whether they'd like to have the most complete set of names, even if some of them have only been surveyed by Ordnance Survey employees rather than OSM volunteers. I don't think that's a great idea, because the name is the name, and if we have good evidence that the name is X then we should just tag name=X. But it could be a way to keep everyone reasonably happy. When going on mapping trips I would then concentrate mostly on roads with no name at all, but also take a moment to verify the OS-sourced names as I passed those roads. I think this would be more efficient and produce a better map faster than if we ignore the OS names entirely. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture new mappers. Recent posts about Latvia, Austria and The Netherlands on talk all substantiate this: in many cases the people recognising the issue were those who either carried out the import or agreed to it. I think a completion bot is a distraction from a much more important issue. In order to get a better level of completeness in the UK what we need are more mappers. There are several ways to recruit mappers: they require a decent amount of hard work, and probably a broader range of skills than writing a bot. We need a more organised way of generating publicity on a regular basis both for national and local media. We need a better press kit. We need to move the emphasis of mapping from getting GPS tracks: dont get me wrong this is still valuable, but a local mapper without a GPS can do a fine job with Bing, OS OpenData, Walking Papers, a camera, and ground surveys. We need more outreach techniques: not just mapping parties, or pub meets or mini-mapping, but workshops for people interested in consuming data, workshops to review the data from particular usage perspectives (cyclists, walkers, sustainable living, wheelchair users, etc.). We could do with more supporting materials for such things: slideshows, posters, how to organise I'm finding this ain't that easy, but at least I'm trying. We also need to recognise that the more detailed each area becomes the harder it becomes for a new mapper to feel that they can contribute, not forgetting the I might break something. If we are to devote effort to code its better directed at tools which can make the life of new mappers easier: this obviously includes contributing to existing editors, but it may mean creating new ones. It almost certainly means working to get a much more sophisticated OpenStreetBugs integrated into the rails port: many new mappers will initially be happy to point out bugs (see recent examples on OSM Help where the first thing someone wants to fix is a turn restriction). I strongly dislike the meme OS data is always more accurate than OSM, because it implies there's no point in doing surveys anyway. Yes, errors occur, although mainly in transcription rather than in surveying as can be seen by errors in using OSSV OSL, but tools like ITO OSM Analysis and OSL Musical Chairs really help to pick up these errors: I've been able to go back to pictures and audio recordings and indeed verify that I'd not changed Street to Road when I copied the tag over from another way. There is also the spurious accuracy problem: people filling in a road name from OS Locator when there is *NO *evidence on the ground that the road has that name (pace RichardF in W Oxon): see my blog post on Kenyon Road http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/02/mysterious-case-of-kenyon-road.html. Many of the unnamed roads in the immediate vicinity of where I'm writing this are of that type: sometimes dogged persistence can nail down that the road is still called that, for instance from address information. Take a look at Corby http://osm.org/go/eu7EEN9: its OSL road complete: a small part on the N edge was surveyed, the rest is largely from OSSV. There is a huge amount of information missing: footways, paths in parks, information about Places of Worship, other POIs. Corby is the classic sort of place which is less likely to receive attention from OSMers according to Muki's studies: its out of the way, it lacks a strong middle-class demographic. There are plenty of people living in places like this who are using Skobbler's apps, but we're never going to reach out to them if we do the easy bits from our armchairs and leave the harder less rewarding mapping activities for others. Why not build a separate database render which merges the missing names ( roads) from OSSV/OSL and OSM data, but is external to the OSM planet database. This could use many of the same techniques as a bot. A bot is putting short-term gain ahead of our long-term interests. Regards, Jerry ___ 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 Jun 9, 2011, at 7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture new mappers. Could you cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving about AND or something more specific? Recent posts about Latvia, Austria and The Netherlands on talk all substantiate this: in many cases the people recognising the issue were those who either carried out the import or agreed to it. I think a completion bot is a distraction from a much more important issue. In order to get a better level of completeness in the UK what we need are more mappers. There are several ways to recruit mappers: they require a decent amount of hard work, and probably a broader range of skills than writing a bot. We need a more organised way of generating publicity on a regular basis both for national and local media. We need a better press kit. We need to move the emphasis of mapping from getting GPS tracks: dont get me wrong this is still valuable, but a local mapper without a GPS can do a fine job with Bing, OS OpenData, Walking Papers, a camera, and ground surveys. We need more outreach techniques: not just mapping parties, or pub meets or mini-mapping, but workshops for people interested in consuming data, workshops to review the data from particular usage perspectives (cyclists, walkers, sustainable living, wheelchair users, etc.). We could do with more supporting materials for such things: slideshows, posters, how to organise I'm finding this ain't that easy, but at least I'm trying. We also need to recognise that the more detailed each area becomes the harder it becomes for a new mapper to feel that they can contribute, not forgetting the I might break something. If we are to devote effort to code its better directed at tools which can make the life of new mappers easier: this obviously includes contributing to existing editors, but it may mean creating new ones. It almost certainly means working to get a much more sophisticated OpenStreetBugs integrated into the rails port: many new mappers will initially be happy to point out bugs (see recent examples on OSM Help where the first thing someone wants to fix is a turn restriction). I strongly dislike the meme OS data is always more accurate than OSM, because it implies there's no point in doing surveys anyway. Yes, errors occur, although mainly in transcription rather than in surveying as can be seen by errors in using OSSV OSL, but tools like ITO OSM Analysis and OSL Musical Chairs really help to pick up these errors: I've been able to go back to pictures and audio recordings and indeed verify that I'd not changed Street to Road when I copied the tag over from another way. There is also the spurious accuracy problem: people filling in a road name from OS Locator when there is NO evidence on the ground that the road has that name (pace RichardF in W Oxon): see my blog post on Kenyon Road. Many of the unnamed roads in the immediate vicinity of where I'm writing this are of that type: sometimes dogged persistence can nail down that the road is still called that, for instance from address information. Take a look at Corby: its OSL road complete: a small part on the N edge was surveyed, the rest is largely from OSSV. There is a huge amount of information missing: footways, paths in parks, information about Places of Worship, other POIs. Corby is the classic sort of place which is less likely to receive attention from OSMers according to Muki's studies: its out of the way, it lacks a strong middle-class demographic. There are plenty of people living in places like this who are using Skobbler's apps, but we're never going to reach out to them if we do the easy bits from our armchairs and leave the harder less rewarding mapping activities for others. Why not build a separate database render which merges the missing names ( roads) from OSSV/OSL and OSM data, but is external to the OSM planet database. This could use many of the same techniques as a bot. A bot is putting short-term gain ahead of our long-term interests. Regards, Jerry ___ 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 New Data and bot
Steve Coast wrote: Could you cite the evidence? Have you Merkins sorted out how you're classifying roads and tagging their numbers yet? (if that's just general incompetence rather than import-related malaise feel free to correct me ;) ) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6458188.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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, SteveC wrote: On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture new mappers. Could you cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving about AND or something more specific? I can. I've a friend in the Netherlands that I'd say is the typical person that we want as mapper. He had mapped a lot of town Which then got wiped out by the AND import, and he didn't bother with OSM for a looong time. Luckily, he now finally started contributing again. Let's hope he keeps it up. Derick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Derick Rethans osm@... writes: When there are no names on a street, it gives a good incentive to go survey them, and it shows which things *need* to be surveyed. Quite right. How can we improve OSM coverage for end users (who would like to find their destination address when navigating, for example, and would not be impressed by their sat-nav device loading up Potlatch and telling them to edit) and yet keep the traditional setup for mappers where 'no name = go and visit'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
I despair that the lazy, armchair mappers are taking over, but as I say, there's little I can do to stop it. Personally I think this project needs all the help it can get. The more data sources and contributors the better. We're trying to build a map from scratch. It's not a simple task. If an armchair-tracing takes it from a blank page to a few roads then that is a step forward towards that goal. If you then go survey it, correct the road geometry a bit, fix a road name or add in some POI then that is another step forward. It's all good. Despair less, enjoy more! If people want an carbon copy of OS datasets, why not just use OS datasets and let OSM mature into the best map of the world rather than a pastiche of imports. I described my approach: I trace roads from Bing and name them from OS Locator. It's not a carbon-copy. The names I add may be the same as OS (and are properly attributed as such) but my traces often differ from the OS version as I can typically see details on the Bing imagery that are not apparent on StreetView (road shape, alleyways, junctions, driveways, traffic lights, etc). Incidentally my Bing traces also seem better than most of the source=gps or source=survey traces I see, which often slavishly follow a GPS track as it zig-zags back-and-forth along a perfectly straight road. You'll no doubt point out that the Bing imagery may not be perfectly aligned and could be warped by lens distortion, atmosphere etc. And I agree. But it is great for getting a pretty accurate representation of the overall shape of the road where there was nothing before. If it then needs tweaked slightly following a ground survey with highly-accurate professional DGPS units then that's fine - but at least in the meantime it is on the map and end-users relying on OSM for their satnavs etc get immediate benefit. Cheers, GrahamS ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Derick Rethans osm@... writes: There is a substantial body of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture new mappers. Could you cite the evidence? I can. I've a friend in the Netherlands that I'd say is the typical person that we want as mapper. He had mapped a lot of town Which then got wiped out by the AND import, and he didn't bother with OSM for a looong time. That's a good piece of evidence but if you look carefully I think what it says is that you should not wipe out existing mapping when doing an import. They must be knitted in with manual attention where necessary and not just dumped from a great height onto the map. In this context I don't believe anyone is advocating the replacement of any bits of the existing OSM map with OS data. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ 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 9 June 2011 15:59, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: I can. I've a friend in the Netherlands that I'd say is the typical person that we want as mapper. He had mapped a lot of town Which then got wiped out by the AND import, and he didn't bother with OSM for a looong time. Luckily, he now finally started contributing again. Let's hope he keeps it up. There has been no suggestion that there are plans to wipe out data. The wiki suggests road names should only be added under the following conditions - The bounding box for the road matches the bounding box for the OS Locator entry within 10% - There is only one OS Locator entry that overlaps the road. - Only if the 'name' field is empty or missing - The bounding box is completely within the permitted area of operation. - Only if no road has ever existed in OpenStreetMap history for the area with the same name (to avoid adding back out-of-date names) There is definite room for arguing that it will reduce active mapping in some situations. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
There is definite room for arguing that it will reduce active mapping in some situations. This keeps getting raised and I'm not sure how true it is. Go and look at some of the areas that are 95-100% complete according to the ITO analysis: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main Did all mapping and surveys in these areas really stop as soon as all the roads were done? Or did people move onto to adding houses, shops, footpaths, traffic lights, post boxes, powerlines and an infinite array of other minutiae? I look at somewhere like Edinburgh and see a very detailed map with individual buildings and house numbers. Around my way I see entire towns that are completely absent from the map. If I lived in Edinburgh I'd be looking for fine-grained details that I could add or correct. Living where I do I just want to get a skeleton of road coverage sorted out. Both are valid activities and benefit the map as a whole. ___ 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 09/06/2011 15:47, SteveC wrote: On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk mailto:sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture new mappers. Could you cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving about AND or something more specific? Generally Google (or perhaps Bing) is your friend, but:: Latvia, ex.Jaak Lainste http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056786.html Austria ex Felix Hartmann http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056801.html I may be thinking of Derick Rethan's example when I mentioned AND. For completeness I should cite Chile, where they have a good experience: Chile ex Julio Costa http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056770.html There are other disasters like the French Cadastre http://osm.org/go/0BOhfIg4F- or the Danish http://osm.org/go/0SpJwUg74- address import where data was imported but no-one ever put the roads in. The Danes seem to be quite happy and seem to have rectified quite a bit of the data recently thanks to Bing imagery; I certainly wasnt when buildings I'd added in Briancon were just zapped for an import, nor did the number of import clean-ups I did on the cadastre because there were huge number of duplicates overwhelm me with joy. I used to be sceptical about the anti-import lobby (e.g., The Pottery Club http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2009/11/10/the-pottery-club/), seeing it as the 'old-hands' resenting things not been done the hard way; and like others here I believed if I traced roads in then people would come along and stick the names on. They didn't names only appeared when either a) I surveyed them, or b) I added them from OSSV data. So I now no longer buy into the build and they will come theory: it rarely works in other domains which is why firms spend money on advertising and marketing. One last thing: I believe the onus is on import advocates to demonstrate how the import will deliver value strengthen OSM. Imports will never get the A46 changes http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/05/along-fosse-way-mapping-new-road.html mapped within a day or so of them happening: and this is the real story to sell OSM rather than We're almost as good as the free data set from the Ordnance Survey. Also imports, and even mapping parties by non-locals will never get the data good enough to be able to just focus on what has changed. It's really frustrating going round a place which looks well mapped and ending up adding 20 new streets because the obvious cues aren't there. I doubt if anyone else has done anything like Dair Grant http://www.refnum.com/projects/osm/edinburgh/'s Edinburgh survey. J ___ 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 Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: In order to get a better level of completeness in the UK what we need are more mappers. Absolutely. Everything we do should be focussed on helping get more mappers, or helping the mappers we have get their jobs done more easily. Everything that is a direct substitute for having more mappers is, at best, a distraction from (what I see as) the desired goal. If we have mappers, and lots of them, then - as we've now demonstrated - we can get a glorious dataset. Note that not everyone here shares the same goals - some people are focussed on the data, others on the community. It might be worth examining why we (collectively) have a tendency to discuss the data all the time and I see very few discussions on community matters. I find in most conversations, if the answer is because we don't have enough mappers yet then the solution is not to bypass them with some form of automation but to get more of them. Unfortunately to most OSMers, community building seems hard (which it is), and writing bots or doing imports seems easy (which it's not). A bot is putting short-term gain ahead of our long-term interests. Indeed. What's more, all the effort that goes into writing bots, discussing them, justifying them etc is time that hasn't gone into the primary goal of recruiting and helping more people to OSM. Cheers, Andy ___ 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 Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Different sources are complementary to each other and should not be viewed as alternatives. Even with 'classic OSM' we had Yahoo tracing combined with foot surveys. Yahoo!? Classic? Get off my lawn! :-) Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Just a simple message to say that I support this idea of a bot, for all the reasons stated by previous posters. Whilst I understand the reservations of those against the bot, I personally don't believe they are relevant to this particular bot as it is described on the wiki. 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
Graham Stewart wrote: This keeps getting raised and I'm not sure how true it is. If you import data into an area that already has an active community, you likely won't damage the community (though you may piss them off). OTOH, you probably don't _need_ to import data because there's already an active community. If you import data into an area that doesn't already have an active community, the community will spring up more slowly or not at all. Example: USA. Even when a community does eventually coalesce, it will be dysfunctional because it hasn't gone through the collective learning experience. This is why, I think, the USA is still having really basic problems like which roads are trunk and which are primary? and how do we write refs?. We sorted that out in the UK ages ago, because as we all went out there and mapped, we learned from each others' experiences. (I remember, for example, the time we used to tag NCN refs as ncn_ref=NR42 or somesuch.) If you want an example closer to home, I'd suggest the South-West Midlands, where Droitwich has been done almost entirely from OSSV, yet continues to languish bereft both of mappers and rich detail. Worcester was growing nicely until the OSSV fairies arrived: there's still a little activity, but the rich map is no longer growing at the rate it was. Yet as soon as you reach the nearby Birmingham conurbation, you have a much richer, actively maintained, more useful map. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6458519.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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 09/06/2011 17:36, Ed Avis wrote: What stops more people using OSM? While I agree with your other points, even before you get to the data, I think the first reason is people don't know about it. And for most people, why would you not just use Google maps even if you did? David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
If you import data into an area that doesn't already have an active community, the community will spring up more slowly or not at all. But that logic suggests that we should actively *discourage* people from doing any mapping, as an overly complete map discourages community. In reality there is still plenty to do in areas that have achieved 100% road coverage. I strongly doubt that the UK community will disintegrate if we ever get the whole country close to 100% roads. And I don't think that fear should hinder us from trying to get to that point. ..Worcester was growing nicely until the OSSV fairies arrived: there's still a little activity, but the rich map is no longer growing at the rate it was. I took a look out of interest. Worcester is a mass of grey roads: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117lat=52.19568481654745lon=-2.2034480483935286zoom=13 So there doesn't seem much evidence of OSSV fairies there. (Or at least not with proper source tag). But Worcester does seem to have a nice detailed map. Plenty of foot and cycle paths, parks etc most of which won't have come from any OS product. Have the local mappers actually stopped mapping or have they just moved onto nearby areas that are more in need of attention? Ed said: It can help us to boost our map from 'excellent in parts, almost blank in others' to 'usable everywhere, excellent in many places'. Then as OSM becomes widely adopted, mapping parties and other contribution become a much easier proposition: rather than 'help out with this geeky new hobby' it becomes 'hey! you can contribute to the map you are already using!'. Complete agree. For every 1000 users getting taken on a 20 mile wild goose chase by their satnav I'd be willing to bet that 999 are left cursing the name of OpenStreetMap and maybe one decides to become a contributor and do something about it. That's not how you win people over! ___ 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 9 June 2011 17:53, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: If you import data into an area that doesn't already have an active community, the community will spring up more slowly or not at all. But that logic suggests that we should actively *discourage* people from doing any mapping, as an overly complete map discourages community. In reality there is still plenty to do in areas that have achieved 100% road coverage. I strongly doubt that the UK community will disintegrate if we ever get the whole country close to 100% roads. And I don't think that fear should hinder us from trying to get to that point. ..Worcester was growing nicely until the OSSV fairies arrived: there's still a little activity, but the rich map is no longer growing at the rate it was. I took a look out of interest. Worcester is a mass of grey roads: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117lat=52.19568481654745lon=-2.2034480483935286zoom=13 According to OSM Mapper Worcester has been developing nicely over a couple of years. Fyi, the most active mapper is this srbrook. Mapper since: 14 October 2009 at 20:30 (over 1 year ago). Description: I'm Steve and have been mapping in the south Worcester, UK area since October 2009. For more details of what I've been up to see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Srbrook The second most active in Jenuk1985 who joined in 2008 and stopped editing in the area over a year ago but is now busy to the west of B'ham. The third most active mapper who again stopped editing in the area over a year ago is called Richard and seems to be closely involved in Potlatch! Here are the stats for the top 10 contributors in the town: srbrook 15650 1565 Jenuk1985 661 0 661 Richard 397 0 397 iccaldwell 164 0 164 Ted Pottage 151 0 151 LivingWithDragons 58 0 58 Steve Chilton 56 0 56 Higgy 55 0 55 i4one 41 0 41 Phil M 38 0 38 These Don't look like an 'OSSV fairy' to me. Or possibly there something is being kept from us :) Regards, Peter So there doesn't seem much evidence of OSSV fairies there. (Or at least not with proper source tag). But Worcester does seem to have a nice detailed map. Plenty of foot and cycle paths, parks etc most of which won't have come from any OS product. Have the local mappers actually stopped mapping or have they just moved onto nearby areas that are more in need of attention? Ed said: It can help us to boost our map from 'excellent in parts, almost blank in others' to 'usable everywhere, excellent in many places'. Then as OSM becomes widely adopted, mapping parties and other contribution become a much easier proposition: rather than 'help out with this geeky new hobby' it becomes 'hey! you can contribute to the map you are already using!'. Complete agree. For every 1000 users getting taken on a 20 mile wild goose chase by their satnav I'd be willing to bet that 999 are left cursing the name of OpenStreetMap and maybe one decides to become a contributor and do something about it. That's not how you win people over! ___ 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 New Data and bot
Tim François sk1ppy14@... writes: Just a simple message to say that I support this idea of a bot, for all the reasons stated by previous posters. Whilst I understand the reservations of those against the bot, I personally don't believe they are relevant to this particular bot as it is described on the wiki.Tim One other point: there may be parts of the UK where mapping is lost because someone doesn’t relicense and there are other contributors whose work has had the rug pulled under it but are willing to rebuild if there’s a way to make it as easy as possible. -- Andrew ___ 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 9 Jun 2011, at 17:47, David Earl wrote: On 09/06/2011 17:36, Ed Avis wrote: What stops more people using OSM? While I agree with your other points, even before you get to the data, I think the first reason is people don't know about it. And for most people, why would you not just use Google maps even if you did? google maps doesn't feature any footpaths! that's what got me into OSM a few years ago. Sorry to prolly be off-message but I'm happy with Google Maps for all things road related (aside from the small errors it has), but I do like OSM for it's footpaths as I'm not aware of anything else that does that, and I've noticed tons of footpaths missing from Ordnance Survey (maybe not official ones, but traversable ones nonetheless) . What *I* would quite like is something to import woods and water, and ideally a tool that would allow me to do it on as small an area as I like (eg 1 mile square), with some-kind of preview and option to back out. If it could be done on local scales, then surely that would empower people (provided they could get their heads around what the tool is and how it works). ttfn, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Andrew andrewhainosm@... writes: One other point: there may be parts of the UK where mapping is lost because someone doesn’t relicense and there are other contributors whose work has had the rug pulled under it but are willing to rebuild if there’s a way to make it as easy as possible. That assumes that the OS licence is compatible with the new contributor terms, which (as discussed at recent LWG meeting) is still not settled! -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Peter Miller wrote: According to OSM Mapper Worcester has been developing nicely over a couple of years. Fyi, the most active mapper is this srbrook. Mapper since: 14 October 2009 at 20:30 (over 1 year ago). Description: I'm Steve and have been mapping in the south Worcester, UK area since October 2009. For more details of what I've been up to see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Srbrook The second most active in Jenuk1985 who joined in 2008 and stopped editing in the area over a year ago but is now busy to the west of B'ham. The third most active mapper who again stopped editing in the area over a year ago is called Richard and seems to be closely involved in Potlatch! The problem with these fast-moving mailing lists is that I get halfway through a reply to Graham's e-mail, go to the pub, come back and then there's another one on the same subject to reply to. :) But... you've kind of illustrated what a mountain we have to climb; and that OSSV-aided completeness _doesn't_ help. Steve Brook is amazing. Steve is amazing in the same way as ChrisH and AndyR and JerryC and AndyA and EdL and HarryW and DerickR and the Cambridge guys and the Oxford guys and a hundred others. These are the people who have built OSM. These are the people who have made it the unique, rich, ground-truthed dataset that it is. Jeni is an OSSV tracer from Bromsgrove. She appears not to have used the source= tag so (as per Graham's observations) it won't show up in any visualisation of such. I'm sure she believes what she did is useful. As it is she's refused ODbL+CT so it's immaterial in a week or two anyway. And then: the third most active mapper in Worcester, a complete city, is me. That is ridiculous. I live in Charlbury, Oxfordshire. Even by InterCity train I'm an hour away. I organised a small mapping afternoon there once and have done some tiny other bits on the occasions that I visit because it has an awesome cathedral, an awesome pub, and a branch of Waterstones. Worcester is nominally complete; yet despite the assurances of people in this thread that completeness will bring more mappers, Worcester has just one mapper, Steve, who was active anyway before OSSV came along. Does that not make you stop and think? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
