[Talk-GB] Fix the road name! Progress Report
Hi Jo, Sorry to hear that you feel that way. The Fix The Road Name initiative comes from Mappa Mercia - an OpenStreetMap group in the West Midlands. It is the first of our quarterly projects that are designed to promote OSM and attempt to grow a bigger and better community in the UK (similar to what we had during the early mapping parties during the early years of OSM). Mappers are obviously welcome to do their own thing which is why we give each project 3 months. We meet every first Thursday of the month and I'd like to personally invite you to join us. See Mappa Mercia on the wiki for details. Best wishes, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Unsigned road names (was Fix the road name!)
Hijacking the thread somewhat, but something that I was wondering about recently... There are many roads that are signed, and we can add them to OSM. Great! There are some roads that are signed, and the sign differs from what the local authority thinks that a road is called (usually just common typos - no surprise, everyone makes mistakes), and we can add the wrong name as a not:name. Also great! Sometimes something that isn't a name that anyone would ever use to refer to something creeps into OSM. These usually (eventually) get shunted off into another key - perhaps official_name, or something else. However, there are names where the name in OSM is what the local authority uses, and what local people would agree that it is called, but there's no sign on the ground. How do we reflect that? It's useful to know from a routing perpective because turn right on foo street is of no use if foo street isn't signed as such. It still makes sense for foo street to be in OSM as the name rather than any other key, because everyone agrees that it is the name - there just isn't a sign for it. What's the best way to tag this? Currently I've been using name:signed=no (and ref:signed=no where the road ref isn't signed). Is there a better / more accepted way of doing this? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Unsigned road names (was Fix the road name!)
On 24 January 2015 at 20:33, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: However, there are names where the name in OSM is what the local authority uses, and what local people would agree that it is called, but there's no sign on the ground. How do we reflect that? I just wanted to add that this does not necessarily only concern small rural tracks, which you might expect to be unsigned. An example of a major road that is unsigned is Paradise Street in Birmingham city centre. -- Matthijs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Unsigned road names (was Fix the road name!)
On 24/01/15 20:33, SomeoneElse wrote: However, there are names where the name in OSM is what the local authority uses, and what local people would agree that it is called, but there's no sign on the ground. How do we reflect that? It's useful to know from a I suspect the local authority take on this is that satellite navigators make road name plates less important. They certainly don't seem to make replacing missing or defaced ones a priority and I've certainly read people saying that road sign clutter can be reduced because people will use navigators. (What actually annoys me is the number of houses without house numbers. If I want to get a number, to report a problem to the council or water company, I may have to go three or four houses before I can get a number to work from. I think some US city ordinances make house numbers mandatory.) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fix the road name! Progress Report
Okay, borrowed a public keyboard for a ten minute ration so i'll try to outline a bit better. Frederik Ramm had the perfect keyphrase when he described osm as a community of makers. Authentic community meetups, for some value of authentic which means self-motivated and group-motivating obsessive-compulsives like our fine friend SK53. One problem in the US is there is little maker community due to the relative provision of state-supplied geodata. Look at the work of skquinn in Houston, Texas; a lone ranger slowly marking up the green space and historic built environment of a neighbourhood. His traces are overlaid by many visitors. He could easily build an osm maker community but who is going to take his hand and give him political courage? Meanwhile, your email took what seemed to me a slightly exploitative tone, and i don't mean to accuse you of anything here, but local quality can assure itself without overt explicit attempts at QA if the right people are doing the cultural driving, for which see Edinburgh and Glasgow as historical shining examples. So why address the maker community in that tone? One major problem i have with it is the ambiguity of we. It sounds like a commercial effort driving along a passive community of contributors. Another is the coders will step up; engineers tend to drive themselves. The work on mechanical edit pipelining is a great example here. OSM is reaching a new sophistication and the ITO message does not reflect that to me personally. Apologies if i've been harsh here, pressed for time but wanted to say something at this point and not spam the thousands of people on the main osm list. Thanks for following this up with me, the snappy one-liner was emitted in poor circumstances, hope you understand. ::) Jo -- Jo Walsh metaz...@fastmail.net On Sat, Jan 24, 2015, at 02:44 PM, Jo Walsh wrote: i'm stuck on android keyboard, i'll try to explain when i find a bigger one ::) On January 24, 2015 12:39:52 PM GMT, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: I don't understand your terminology - if you could explain maybe I could adapt Regards Brian On 23 January 2015 at 17:22, Jo Walsh metaz...@fastmail.net wrote: bit submissive-coercive in tone for me On January 23, 2015 12:56:11 PM GMT, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to ITOworld for fixing the problem with OSM Analysis - we now have some data to workon Well done to the folk in: City of Leicester, Bradford, Darlington, Redcar and Cleveland, Hartlepool, Shetland Islands, Sheffield, Berwick upon Tweed, Rutland and Guildford You are our leaders in our first quarterly project. How about Liverpool, Fife, Rotherham, and Manchester, all with over 200 road name errors, getting up amongst the leaders? A challenge to anyone with coding skills: *Can we take the data on which ITOworld work, from where the data shown above comes, to make it personal, so we can see who is doing the editing- similar to the daily leader board for Irish townlands[1]?* We have corrected 247 road names in the last week. So if we continue at this rate we should have completed another 2,223 by the end of the quarter. Let's see if we can build on this and make a bigger dent in the task. Otherwise we'll still have another year and a half to complete it - and that's without the OS Locator updates adding more corrections. Regards Brian Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Links: 1. http://www.townlands.ie/progress/activity/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Unsigned road names (was Fix the road name!)
I have always assumed that your usage is fine, although I have not tagged this information myself. However, today chasing up one of the missing locator streets (one I knew had been built, but had not bee in the area for a while) I found that the road is completely lacking any street name signs. Fortunately a couple of the houses have the name of the street as well as the housenumber, so I was able to resolve the name. Cheers, Jerry On 24 January 2015 at 20:33, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: Hijacking the thread somewhat, but something that I was wondering about recently... There are many roads that are signed, and we can add them to OSM. Great! There are some roads that are signed, and the sign differs from what the local authority thinks that a road is called (usually just common typos - no surprise, everyone makes mistakes), and we can add the wrong name as a not:name. Also great! Sometimes something that isn't a name that anyone would ever use to refer to something creeps into OSM. These usually (eventually) get shunted off into another key - perhaps official_name, or something else. However, there are names where the name in OSM is what the local authority uses, and what local people would agree that it is called, but there's no sign on the ground. How do we reflect that? It's useful to know from a routing perpective because turn right on foo street is of no use if foo street isn't signed as such. It still makes sense for foo street to be in OSM as the name rather than any other key, because everyone agrees that it is the name - there just isn't a sign for it. What's the best way to tag this? Currently I've been using name:signed=no (and ref:signed=no where the road ref isn't signed). Is there a better / more accepted way of doing this? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
